Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

QUEEN MOTHER'S 100TH BIRTHDAY

The VICE CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address concerning the one hundredth birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.

It gives me great pleasure to hear of the loyal affection of the House and the nation on this special occasion, and to ensure that your message is conveyed to Queen Elizabeth.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Wednesday 25 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Spending Review (Local Government)

Mr. Win Griffiths: When he last met the First Secretary to discuss the impact of the 2000 spending review on local government. [130876]

Sir Raymond Powell: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on local government in Wales. [130886].

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): Madam Speaker, as this is the last occasion on which you will preside over Welsh questions, may I, on behalf of all Welsh Members of Parliament, wish you well in your retirement?
I have met the First Secretary on a regular basis in the run-up to the 2000 spending review. I welcome the excellent settlement that we have secured for Wales, which includes amounts consequential on allocations to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions for local government. It will, of course, be for the National Assembly to decide how the consequential amounts will be allocated in Wales.

Mr. Griffiths: Given that the National Assembly has that flexibility in allocating spending in Wales, will my right hon. Friend confirm that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent statement on spending has the direct consequence that an extra £338 million could be available for local government in Wales over three years, and that additional sums could also be available for education, housing and social services? Will he also confirm that those welcome additional resources will be badly needed by local government as it takes up new duties and challenges in the provision of services, especially for children and elderly people?

Mr. Murphy: I can confirm that, if the National Assembly were to spend the consequential amounts on the services to which my hon. Friend referred, the figure that he gave would be correct. As I said earlier, it is entirely for the National Assembly to decide how to spend its money. However, I am sure that the Assembly and the House will agree that the settlement that Wales received last week from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which amounts to £2,000 million over and above the normal increases over the past three years, is the best settlement that Wales has received for many years.

Sir Raymond Powell: Will my right hon. Friend get the message across to all the people in Wales that this is the best settlement that local government has ever had? Should not local government be satisfied with what it has got and begin to ensure the proper provision of housing, education and other services? Should not the £101 million that has been given for housing in Wales be used to tackle the backlog of repairs and shortages that the Tories left in Wales when they left government?

Mr. Murphy: My ministerial colleagues and I will do everything that we can to get that message across. My hon. Friend is right to say that, after nearly two decades of neglect, there is much to be done in Wales, especially in the valley communities that he and I represent. That is why objective 1 status was given to west Wales and the valleys, and why we are extremely pleased at today's news that the European Commission has finally given its approval to the plan for objective 1 status.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) quoted figures for local government and education, and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) quoted a figure for housing. However, would not the total be £80 million a year higher if that same amount did not have to be taken out of the Welsh block to provide match funding for the European projects? We welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of the decision in Brussels, but local government in Wales is very worried at the news from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that it expects an increase in council tax of as much as 10 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that enough money will be provided to prevent that?

Mr. Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that last week's settlement with regard to structural funds means that £421 million extra is going to Wales, over and above the Barnett formula. We have never had that money—nearly £0.5 billion extra—in the past. It releases money in the block for match funding, and is therefore excellent news for Wales. I believe that local government will be very glad to receive the settlement, and I only wish that Plaid Cymru was glad too.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The question asks when the Secretary of State last met the First Secretary. We have the honour of having the First Secretary with us today. May I take the opportunity of congratulating him on his recent appointment as a Privy Councillor?
The question relates to local government. Is it not a fact that the people of Wales have had enough spin from the Government and that it simply will not wash with them any more? The recent local council tax rises of five times the rate of inflation are quite incredible. In all but two counties, the council tax increase has more than eaten away the 75p increase in pensioner incomes in Wales. Is it not the case that the Government give with one hand but grab back with two hands? What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to the people of Wales that, given the settlement, next year's council tax rises will be within the rate of inflation?

Mr. Murphy: First, the National Assembly is looking very carefully at the way in which it distributes its grant. There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a consultation process taking place which will be completed in September, to which he and others can make representations.
After two decades of neglect of local government in Wales, to tell us what should happen with public spending is very rich coming from the hon. Gentleman and his party. I repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—local government in Wales is extremely happy with the overall settlement given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the spending review last week. Local government and all the people of Wales will benefit from what has occurred during the past seven days in this House of Commons.

Mr. Llew Smith: Although I think that most people would accept that this settlement is the best that Wales has had, at any time and from any Government, my local authority is concerned that the formula for the distribution of local authority moneys by the National Assembly still does not take deprivation into account. As the poorest authority in Wales, we expect that formula to reflect poverty and to begin to rectify some of the injustices of many a long year.

Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. He has raised the matter with me on a number of occasions. Again, I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The National Assembly is reviewing the way in which the grant is distributed in Wales, and there is a consultation period that ends in September. I hope that both my hon. Friend and his local authority of Blaenau Gwent will be making representations to the Assembly. I hope that that review will take into account the deprivation to which he quite rightly refers.

Farm Incomes

Mr. Nicolas Winterton: if he will make a statement on trends in farm incomes in Wales. [130877]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): The Government and the National Assembly for Wales have taken all appropriate steps to assist Welsh farmers to achieve a sustainable agricultural industry. I am hopeful that the Agenda 2000 common agricultural policy reforms, coupled with the rural development plan for Wales and the industry's own resilience and coherent approach to rural development in Wales, will result in an improved level of farm incomes in Wales.

Mr. Winterton: We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly is present today, for which we are very grateful. Will the Minister give his view on why the Welsh Agriculture and Rural Development Secretary, Christine Gwyther, has been dismissed? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is important, because the farming crisis in Wales is particularly acute? Average hill farming incomes have fallen this year to just over £2,700. What will the hon. Gentleman do about this crisis, which affects much of rural wales?

Mr. Hanson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that decisions on the Assembly Cabinet are rightly and properly a matter for the First Secretary, and that it is not for me to comment. However, jointly, the Assembly—with Christine Gwyther in position—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I secured at the No. 10 Downing street summit an extra £14.7 million in Wales for less favoured areas, an extra £10.6 million agrimonetary compensation in Wales and an additional £2 million to be spent on business advice to farmers. That is in stark contrast to the BSE party.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Thank you for calling me, Madam Speaker. We send our very best wishes for your retirement from these Benches.
I was very pleased that the Secretary of State was at the Royal Welsh show yesterday, presenting my constituent, Mr. John Davies, with a farmer of the year award. However, will the Minister note that there are appallingly low incomes in farming in Wales at present, which are below the national minimum wage? Will he do everything possible, in co-operation with the First Secretary of the Assembly, to ensure that farming incomes increase? In particular, will he note that the agricultural budget for hill livestock compensatory allowances has been cut for next year?
Will the hon. Gentleman also note that the Welsh Development Agency has abolished rural business grants? That is a very serious matter—we suspect that those rural grants are being used for match funding for objective 1 areas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is scandalous for the areas that are affected?

Mr. Hanson: There is certainly a partnership between the National Assembly and the British Government to help to support and develop farm incomes. My right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the Royal Welsh show yesterday; my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is there today; and I am going tomorrow. We shall listen to farmers and work in conjunction with the devolved administration to ensure that we support farmers and help them to develop and improve their incomes. The Government have given more than £19,000 of direct subsidy, on average, to each farm in Wales. That is a positive step by the Government. We shall do what we can to help to support farmers.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that Welsh farmers will benefit from the Government's success in securing objective 1 funding, that Wales is benefiting from the success in agrimonetary compensation that has been achieved following the Downing street summit and that, under the previous Government, not a penny of objective 1 funding or agrimonetary compensation was secured from Europe?

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: objective 1 was secured by the Labour Government, and it will benefit rural areas. The nationalists said that they could not do that; the Tories would not do it; but Labour did it.

EU Structural Funds

Mr. Ian Bruce: What recent discussions he has had regarding the matching of European regional funds. [130878]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The excellent spending review settlement for Wales announced last week included an additional £421 million for the structural funds programmes in Wales. That settlement unlocks funding within the block to meet match funding requirements.
I have talked with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the Assembly Finance Secretary, who agree that, as a result of the settlement, no worthwhile objective 1 project will be held back by a lack of resources.

Mr. Bruce: In the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has had with the First Secretary, did the First Secretary query whether all the funding is additional and fully matches the European funds? After all, the previous First Secretary had to resign because he could not get that from the Government. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all the match funding represents additional funds over and above the Barnett formula and all the normal streams of funds that go to Wales?

Mr. Murphy: As I explained moments ago, the £421 million, which amounts to £1.2 billion or £1.3 billion over nine years, that will come from Brussels is wholly additional to the block and to Barnett. The hon. Gentleman should remind himself that, for the 21 years that structural funding came to this country, not one penny was extra to the block, and it has taken a Labour Government to change that. It comes very rich from the Conservative party to tell us in Wales how to deal with

public finances, given that the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor would put public services in peril because they intend to cut public finances.

Mr. Chris Ruane: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to give the Conservatives some credit for achieving objective 1 for Wales because, in 1979, the economy of Wales was mid-table of the 13 regions of the United Kingdom but, in 1997, when the Conservatives left office, we were bottom of the table?

Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. As he has said in the past couple of days about objective 1, we must get on with the schemes and projects with the people of Wales. The more we squabble, and the more people whinge about the excellent settlement, the less easy it will be to begin those schemes and projects. It is an excellent settlement for Wales, and we all know it.

Mr. Robert Walter: It is clear from the statements made last week that the European Commission's share of funds for objective 1 will be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. It is also clear that the social fund will be taken from the Department for Education and Employment and given to the National Assembly. As the Secretary of State has said, that provides £421 million over three years, and we do not dispute that figure.
What is not clear is where the additional funding for objective 1 will come from. Where are the match funds that the Prime Minister promised Wales? The Secretary of State has said that they will be met from within the block grant, which exists for health, education, roads and local government. Which programme does he expect the National Assembly to cut to make the match funds available?

Mr. Murphy: I explained to the hon. Gentleman at some length in the Welsh Grand Committee how we would deal with the funds needed for programme match. They need not necessarily come from the block, but might come, for example, from lottery money, from money from the Department for Education and Employment or from the private sector. Where the match funds come from can vary. The hon. Gentleman seems not to understand—or does not want to understand—that this is a huge and significant breakthrough in how we deal with public finances in Wales. The overall settlement of an extra £2 billion is an enormous improvement on anything that Conservative Governments dreamt of, let alone gave us.

Mr. Barry Jones: My constituency would like access to the funds under discussion, but, in their absence, would be happy to accept a regional grant of £25 million for 1,400 aerospace jobs. Does my right hon. Friend know that a far-away, secretive quango is proving an obstacle to our getting those jobs? How can he help'? Will he talk to the First Secretary and deliver the £25 million grant?

Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend has rightly raised that matter several times, as he represents Broughton. He is aware that the Government are committed to ensuring the success of the project and have given a loan of more than £500 million. Discussions are still under way in the


National Assembly, and my right hon. Friend can rest assured that I shall take the matter up with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

New Deal

Mr. John Bercow: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the new deal for young people. [130880]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales regularly meets the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues. I also hold regular meetings with the Assembly Secretary for Education and Training. One of the Government's chief aims is to get young people into work so that they can play a full and productive part in society. At the end of April, almost 14,900 young people in Wales had entered employment through the new deal programme.

Mr. Bercow: Given the facts that only 13 per cent. of new deal participants in Wales leave the scheme for unsubsidised employment, that only 10 per cent. of those on the training and education option end up with a qualification when they finish it, and that those participants are twice as likely not to get a job as they are to get one, why does the Minister not give up the unequal struggle, admit that his scheme is an expensive flop and offer an unqualified apology to the people of Wales?

Mr. Hanson: At almost every Welsh questions since I was appointed a Minister, the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. At almost every Welsh question, we have proved that he is wrong. Some 14,900 people are in work in Wales because of the new deal. The Chancellor has extended the programme and made it permanent. One thing is clear: the Conservative party would scrap it. Perhaps on your retirement, Madam Speaker, given the hon. Gentleman's persistence, you might take him with you.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend ignore the sneering nonsense of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and recognise, as many of us do, the tremendous importance of the new deal in giving hope to young people in our communities? Will he ensure that new deal money and the programme's success are linked to objective 1 to multiply the benefits of both schemes?

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The new deal is a Labour initiative, which has created great employment prospects in the valleys and throughout Wales, and will be maximised when it is linked to objective 1. A key fact is that the Conservative party opposed the new deal and would not support additional funds for objective 1.

Spending Review (Home Office)

Mr. Simon Hughes: What discussions he has had with the

First Secretary on the subject of the comprehensive spending review in relation to Home Office matters in Wales. [130881]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues.
Last Wednesday's announcement by the Home Secretary of an extra £1.6 billion for police funding in England and Wales for the next three years is very good news. It represents an average annual increase in police funding of 7 per cent. and a further 4,000 recruits for England and Wales, bringing the total to 9,000 extra recruits over the next three years. The fire services too will receive a substantial increase.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Secretary of State seen the report in today's Western Mail that, of almost £7 million allocated by the Home Office to deal with domestic violence in England and Wales, this month Wales was allocated only £31,000, even though there were 15,000 reported incidents of domestic violence in Wales last year? Has the Secretary of State taken that up with the Home Secretary, and are those figures correct? If they are, and if the Secretary of State has not made representations, will he talk to the Home Secretary urgently so that resources that the community clearly feels are needed can be provided to deal with domestic violence in Wales?

Mr. Murphy: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and the importance of these matters, especially given the news in the past few days about the terrible events in Barry. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I shall, of course, raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: May I welcome the extra money that was given to Wales last week for rural policing, especially the £1.3 million that is being given to Dyfed-Powys police in my area? Does the Secretary of State welcome, as I do, the fact that that will enable the new chief constable, Terry Grange, to carry out plans to increase police numbers and open new police stations in the Dyfed-Powys area? Does that not contrast clearly with the position of the previous Government, who flatly refused to allow Dyfed police to take on a further 72 officers?

Mr. Murphy: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Dyfed-Powys received a considerable increase, as did north Wales, which received £770,000 extra, and my own county of Gwent, which received £103,000, which effectively means that there will be an extra 5,000 recruits in addition to the usual 11,000. Wales will get extra 223 police officers, distributed throughout Dyfed-Powys, Gwent, north Wales and south Wales. On top of that, last week's announcement means that we shall have even more police recruits.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Does the Secretary of State predict a rise or fall in crime in Wales next year?

Mr. Murphy: It is not for me to predict anything. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the latest statistics show that recorded crime in Wales fell by 2.5 per cent last year, against a 3.8 per cent. rise in England and Wales as a whole. The largest fall in crime was in south Wales, where there was a reduction of 5.8 per cent.

Spending Review (Health and Social Services)

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on health and social services in Wales. [130882]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the First Secretary on a regular basis in the run-up to the 2000 spending review. The excellent settlement secured for Wales includes amounts consequential on allocations to the Department of Health which can be allocated by the National Assembly to improve health care throughout Wales.

Mr. Jones: When my hon. Friend next meets the Assembly's Health and Social Services Secretary, will he encourage her to use the unique opportunity of £750 million over the next three years to rise above vested interests and parochial concerns, and to invest and build a health service in Wales fit for the 21st century? Will he encourage her to find a fair funding formula based on people's health needs, and establish that throughout Wales?

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend is right in saying that additional resources are now available to the National Assembly to secure support and improve investment in the national health service in Wales. This year, the Budget gave £1,300 million extra to the NHS in Wales, and consequentials from the Department of Health will allow Assembly Secretary Jane Hutt an opportunity to ensure greater development of health services in Wales. It is clear that the Conservative party would not be able to meet those commitments, and health care would be poorer in Wales as a result.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is it not true that people in Wales are being kept off the in-patient waiting list by being kept on the out-patient waiting list longer than ever before? When the Government came to power, the number of people waiting over three months for a first outpatient appointment was 28,401; today, that figure is 84,684. If anybody feels unwell in Wales, they should look not for an ambulance, but for a train so that they can get better health treatment outside Wales. When will the Minister ensure that the people of Wales get a better health service—indeed, the health service that they were promised at the last general election?

Mr. Hanson: Where would the Conservative party find the £1.3 billion extra this year if their tax guarantee were in place? Waiting lists and waiting times are important to the Welsh Assembly and to this Government. We have put the money in place to deal with them, and the hon. Gentleman's party would cut it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
I have written to Chancellor Schröder, President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin on behalf of the people of Great Britain to convey our shock and heartfelt sympathies over the tragic air accident that occurred in France yesterday, which has led to the loss of so many lives. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the families and friends of the deceased.

Mr. Donohoe: I am sure that the whole House endorses the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister.
Last week we heard the splendid news, for both England and Scotland, of the spending review. However, could one small change be made? My right hon. Friend will be aware that the floodgates have opened in terms of the illicit trade of alcohol into the UK. In my constituency, in particular, it has become a new profession at the cost of the retail trade. Given your retiral this week, Madam Speaker, and knowing that you like a wee dram, may I ask my right hon. Friend to have a word with the Chancellor about reducing the price of the duty on a bottle of whisky?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in this matter as chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky group. I accept entirely that the problem of smuggling exists, which is why we are taking action on it, but this is not a matter of small change. We need to maintain the real value of Government revenue, and the cost simply of freezing all alcohol duties on an indexed basis this year would be £165 million. I am afraid that that is money that we desperately need for the very public service changes that I know my hon. Friend wants.

Mr. William Hague: May I join the Prime Minister in expressing our sadness at yesterday's terrible air crash in Paris, with the loss of 113 lives? We join him in passing on our deepest condolences to the families in Germany and France—and now, we understand, one in Britain—who have lost their loved ones. As one of the partners in the Concorde enterprise, and given that our own air accidents investigation branch has unrivalled expertise, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be involved in the


inquiry into the crash and will he assure the French Government that we stand ready to help in any way that we can?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that we stand ready to help in any way that we can. I understand that our people are co-operating with the French authorities.

Mr. Hague: I am grateful for that reply. May I now turn to a domestic political issue?
On Monday night, the House of Lords voted in accordance with the wishes of the people of this country to defeat the Prime Minister's campaign to repeal section 28. Does he agree that, on this issue, the House of Lords has more accurately reflected public feeling than the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: No, I believe that clause 28 is a piece of prejudice. It is right to remove it and I remain committed to removing it. The objection to its repeal—that somehow we would allow schools to have homosexual sex education lessons—and all the rest of the propaganda that was put forward during the course of the campaign has now been comprehensively put down and rubbished by the amendments that we have put forward, so, no I do not agree with him. It is the right thing to do and I believe that we should do it.

Mr. Hague: If the Prime Minister does not recognise that the Lords are more in touch with the country on this issue, it shows how out of touch he has become. He could at least listen to his own supporters in his own party on the issue: the Labour peer Lord Stoddart who said
there has been an outcry…throughout the country
and Lord Mishcon who said that the Government
misunderstand the mood of our people.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2000; Vol. 609, c. 444–76.]
He could listen to more than a million people in Scotland who voted to keep section 28—more than voted for any party in the Scottish parliamentary elections. Is it not an undeniable fact that the Lords have more genuinely reflected public opinion on this issue?

The Prime Minister: A lot of the public concern on this was based on the belief that somehow, as a result of repealing clause 28, schools would be forced or allowed to teach gay sex education in schools. That is simply not true. As a result of the amendments tabled to the Learning and Skills Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows now, it is made absolutely clear that sex education is for schools, parents and teachers, and, what is more, that any parent has the right absolutely to withdraw their children from sex education.
I think we know what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. It is exactly the same as he did over the asylum issue—it is pandering to prejudice and it is not a pretty sight.

Mr. Hague: That was a nice lecture from Mr. Eye-catching Initiative himself, wasn't it? Has not the right hon. Gentleman's crusade for political correctness gone far enough? He has been told by Church leaders to scrap his campaign; he has been told by Parliament to scrap it; he has been told by the public at every

opportunity to scrap it; he has packed the other House full of his cronies and he still cannot get it through the other House. Will he now scrap the repeal of section 28 from the next Session and from his next election manifesto?

The Prime Minister: I repeat that the reason I believe it is right to repeal the clause is that, having taken account of the one serious objection put forward by people—their worry about sex education in schools—it is now a piece of prejudice pure and simple. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, I know that and so do Members of the House.
As for packing the other place with my cronies, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party still has more life peers than we do. I hear what the House of Lords says, but I believe that we took the right position on this issue and I shall continue to hold to it.

Mr. Hague: Is it not a hallmark of recent months that the Prime Minister is more and more adrift from the people of this country? He presses on today with section 28; he has let out thousands of violent criminals ahead of their parole date; he is spending millions of pounds on preparing to join a currency opposed by the British people; he has raised taxes on the poorest households in the country; and then he sends round a pathetic memo asking if anyone knows why he is out of touch. Does he agree that the Government—and this even applies to him—are out of touch with "gut British instincts"?

The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is not raising today the economy or public services. Why is he not doing so? It is because he has nothing to say about the real issues. I will tell him what concerns the British people: jobs—a million extra of them; the lowest inflation in Europe; interest rates at half the level that they were under the Tories; and extra spending on schools, hospitals, law and order and transport. The right hon. Gentleman's jokes are all very well, but he should get to the Dispatch Box now and debate the real policies.

Hague: We shall debate the real policies. There are 2,500 fewer police than there were three years ago; 150,000 more people are waiting to see a hospital consultant now than three years ago; and 98,000 more violent crimes were committed in this country last year than in the previous year. That has happened under the Prime Minister's stewardship. It is a pity that he cannot agree that the Government are out of touch with "gut British instincts" because he wrote that. He is out of touch not only with the people but with himself.
The Government have lived by spin and they are now dying by spin; they have lived by gimmicks and are now known for nothing but gimmicks; they have orchestrated leaks and are now drowning in them. The Prime Minister's sole purpose was to follow public opinion; he is now utterly out of touch with the majority in this country.

The Prime Minister: We finally got the right hon. Gentleman down to policy. He wants more police on the beat; that means more spending. He wants fewer people on waiting lists; that means more spending. He wants extra money for schools; that means more spending. We are committed to spending more money on such programmes. However, the right hon. Gentleman has a


policy of £16 billion worth of cuts. Perhaps when he next gets to his feet, he can explain last week's Conservative party research department note. It is very interesting, and tells us where the spending cuts will be made.
On health, the note states:
We will match the spending on health that Labour announced in the Budget.
However, on education, the notes states:
We will match what we can afford.
On crime, it states:
We will match what we can afford.
On transport, it states:
We will match what we can afford.
On defence, again it states:
We will match what we can afford.
If the right hon. Gentleman can give a commitment to match us on health, let us have commitments on the other programmes.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Eddie O'Hara.

Hon. Members: Where is the last question from the Leader of the Opposition?

Madam Speaker: Order. I can count. I call Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara: As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, may I take the opportunity to thank you publicly, Madam Speaker, for your distinguished service to the House, and wish you all you wish for yourself in your retirement?
Let me put on my battered very old Labour hat. It is a matter of record that the Tories in government reduced millions of pensioners to poverty, and that the Liberal Democrats promised a rise in pensions in line with prices, not earnings, funded by an infinitely flexible penny on income tax. Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that the eyes of pensioners are on his Government, and that their view is refracted through the prism of 75p? Will he assure me that the summer message to my pensioners in Knowsley, South is that £6 billion is just for starters and that they ain't seen nothing yet?

The Prime Minister: Of course, my hon. Friend is right about the Conservatives' record. They scrapped the earnings link, they put 1.5 million pensioners in poverty and they increased VAT on fuel. It was right for us to make pensioner poverty a priority. Consequently, 1 million pensioners are up to £20 a week better off through the minimum income guarantee, and 3 million pensioners will benefit from free television licences for the over-75s. On top of that, the winter fuel allowance is now £150. We know for certain that the Tories would take every one of those benefits from pensioners.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I entirely associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the perfectly correct condolences expressed by the Prime Minister and the Conservative party leader following yesterday's tragedy? Moving back to the

domestic political agenda and, indeed, the earlier exchanges, may I ask the Prime Minister when the Government propose to repeal section 28?

The Prime Minister: We have said that we will declare our position at some later time. We are obviously considering the best way to do so, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to repealing clause 28 because that is the right thing to do

Mr. Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister agree, however, that even though the pose that the leader of the Tory party is yet again adopting on this matter is an affront, an equal but different constitutional affront is the fact that if a deal had not been done with Lord Cranborne, the hereditary peers still in the House of Lords would not have been in a position to thwart the clear, overwhelming view of the democratically elected House of Commons? I encourage him to continue and to stick to his convictions over the repeal of section 28, but will he go further and commit himself to establishing—sooner rather than later—a completely and thoroughly democratically elected House of Lords?

The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks, but on his opening comment it is important that we repeal section 28 for the reasons that I gave earlier. We have dealt with the one justifiable objection that people had. We have even made sure that the very objection made to one particular piece of propaganda, which is the only piece that could ever be pointed to by opponents of the repeal—namely, something issued by Avon health authority—can be made no longer. There is absolute protection for parents and teachers and children in school.
I say this to Conservative Members: they may think that they will gain support in certain quarters, but I genuinely believe that this country is a tolerant country. We are sufficiently mature, in the 21st century, to say that people who are gay are entitled to the same treatment and rights as other people in our society.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent settlement for Wales in last week's comprehensive spending review? He will know that during the past year the Welsh nationalists have mounted a virulent and corrosive campaign over match funding. However, the settlement gives a 5.4 per cent. real-terms increase across all public spending and an extra £421 million for objective 1 funding. Does he agree that the priority is to develop imaginative schemes that will provide long-term jobs and growth in the gross domestic product, and help to repair the 18 years of damage under Conservative government?

The Prime Minister: Of course the objective 1 additional funding that has been made available for the next three years—some £420 million over and above the Barnett formula—will do a great deal for regeneration in Wales. Also, as a result of the new deal and, indeed, the strength of the economy, unemployment in Wales has fallen considerably. Once again, my hon. Friend will note


that the additional objective 1 money in Wales is precisely what would fall under the cosh of the Tories' £16 billion spending cuts

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What would the Prime Minister say to my constituent Mr. Alistair Scott of Wanlockhead whose 30-year-old haulage business has just closed, largely because he cannot compete and return loads from England because he is up against hauliers who have many vehicles based in France, where they can buy DERV at 54p a litre as against 84p a litre in this country? What would he tell Mr. Scott—that things can only get better?

The Prime Minister: First, the hon. Gentleman's political party has not merely made no commitment whatever on petrol duty, but is committed to putting taxes up for business in Scotland. Secondly, it is of course correct to say that petrol prices have been higher here. I have explained on many occasions the reasons for that. It was important that we removed the deficit that we inherited when we came to office. The very best thing for business as a whole in Scotland and the rest of the UK is a strong, well-run economy. Under this Government, it has got that.

Mr. Derek Twigg: My constituency has some of the worst health statistics in the country, which is why the extra money for the NHS is most welcome. However, do we not have to ensure that those resources are targeted where they are most needed, and efficiently delivered? That is why the NHS national plan is most important. We do not need what the Leader of the Opposition talked about in his speech yesterday—the privatisation of the NHS.

The Prime Minister: The Opposition are committed to taking £1 billion for their private medical insurance plans, and that money will come straight out of the national health service. The benefit of the spending review is that it allows us to make an investment in our hospitals and in our primary care facilities, and to increase the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS. Taken together with the other spending—investment in education, skills and transport infrastructure—it offers the genuine chance of opportunity and security for all in our society.

Mr. Edward Davey: The Prime Minister will be aware of a recent report commissioned by Britain's top universities, which recommended charging students top-up fees of up to £4,500 a year. Will he give the House a categorical assurance that the Government will not introduce top-up fees for students, and would not introduce them if they were re-elected?

The Prime Minister: We have no plans to introduce top-up fees. It is important that we get additional funds into our universities. Therefore, under the spending review we are putting extra money into the university system, which is vastly in excess of anything that he, as a Liberal Democrat, promised his electorate at the last election.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that politics is essentially

about choices? People gloat at memo leaks while the Government get on with the job of repairing leaking school roofs that have disfigured our education system for too long; they concentrate on spin doctors while the Government get on with the job of recruiting new doctors to rebuild our national health service; and they launch bogus campaigns to save the pound while the Government deliver an economy of 1 million new jobs. My right hon. Friend's initials may be "TB", but "not to be" is the destiny of the Conservative party.

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that there are clear choices. There is the choice between stability and boom and bust, and between lower unemployment under this Government and higher unemployment under the Conservative party. It is difficult to know exactly what choice to make when one reads interviews such as that with the shadow Chancellor in The Spectator a day or two ago. He was asked by the interviewer whether his plans meant that he would announce lower spending. He replied:
We reject the language of cuts.
The interviewer asked:
You mean you won't be cutting?
Answer:
We may or may not be spending less.
[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have a lot of questions to answer between now and the election.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Does the Prime Minister believe that focus groups are the stuff of leadership?

The Prime Minister: No. That is why, when we announce our additional expenditure plans or even when we take positions that are put to me by the leader of his party as unpopular, we do what is right.

Mr. Harry Cohen: As this is the last Prime Minister's questions that you will preside over, Madam Speaker, may I congratulate you on controlling this near riot every week? If the Prime Minister offers you a law and order job, please accept it.
Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Commission for Racial Equality's report "Inspecting schools for race equality", which says that the Office for Standards in Education has failed to fulfil its lead responsibility to ensure racial equality and to challenge racism in schools? Many inspectors were unaware of that responsibility and considered it unimportant, like Christmas tree baubles. One of them said that Ofsted's priority was "under-achieving white boys". Ofsted's chiefs have whinged at the report's findings, which is pretty rich for an organisation that is used to dishing out criticism. When other organisations have been criticised, they have made changes and improvements. Will my right hon. Friend require Ofsted to do the same?

The Prime Minister: To be fair, Ofsted has indeed replied. It points out that the findings rely on analysis of only about 30 reports out of a total of more than 30,000.


It also says, however, that the CRE report contains criticisms that it will take on board, which I think is the right and responsible thing for it to do.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Millions of people take their main holiday abroad nowadays, but many also take a second holiday in a United Kingdom seaside resort. Will the Prime Minister give a lead to his hon. Friends and the country, and take a second holiday in one of those UK seaside resorts which have so much to offer the holiday visitor?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that carefully, but at present I am concentrating on my first holiday.

Helen Jones: Is the Prime Minister aware that extra education spending in my constituency has halved the number of infants in classes of more than 30 and financed 48 projects under the new deal for schools, many in the most deprived areas? Which of those investments in our young people does he think could be described as "reckless"—the extra teachers, the new classrooms, or the newly announced sure start programme for Warrington? Will he tell my constituents how many of those projects he thinks could survive £24 million worth of Tory cuts?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that many of the things that have been done in schools in her constituency, and constituencies up and down the country, are a result of the new deal. The Conservative party is opposed to the new deal, and committed to scrapping it.
As for the additional spending announced last week, we now know that the Conservatives are opposed to it, and would reduce it by £16 billion. We also know, from what I have read out today, that whatever the Conservatives may say about health spending—and I do not think they are credible on that either—they now accept that in each and every other area they will make substantial cuts.

Mr. Michael Jack: Can the Prime Minister explain why, if state-owned British Nuclear Fuels can find £40 million from public funds to compensate the Japanese for nuclear fuel problems, we cannot find some public funds to compensate Britain's former Japanese prisoners of war?

The Prime Minister: As I have said before, we will make our decision on the issue of Japanese prisoners of war in due course; but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other Conservative Member can come to the House and start asking us to increase public spending. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that he wants more spending when his party is committed to cutting spending.
Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members what exercise they will be engaged in over the coming months and years. They will have to explain why, in every constituency in the country, £24 million worth of spending is to be cut. If they think

that will be easy, let me read them what one of their shadow Finance Ministers said a few days ago. He said:
The economies we have to find, I admit, will not be easy.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we head for the recess, the overwhelming majority of the British people are satisfied that we have focused not just on the needs of the moment, but on the needs of the next three years? We are not spending money on diversions, but are focusing on health, education and dealing with crime, as people want us to. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that our direction is the direction of the British people?

The Prime Minister: That money is going directly into the services that people need. As the Chancellor pointed out last week, the big difference is that whereas under the last Government 42p in every pound of additional spending went on social security and interest payments on debt, under this Government 83p in the pound goes to the very public services that the country wants. Not only will we create a more just society through our spending, but we will create the economic prosperity of the future.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Just three weeks ago, the Prime Minister gave three reasons for refusing to drop his Bill to take away the right of every individual citizen to choose trial by jury. Is he aware that every one of those reasons has been demonstrated to be incorrect? First, he said that the Bill was supported by the Lord Chief Justice, but we now know that the Lord Chief Justice had written to the Home Secretary expressing strong misgivings. Secondly, he said that it was supported by the Runciman royal commission. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear the question.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Secondly, the Prime Minister said that it was supported by the Runciman royal commission, but Professor Zander of that commission has expressly disavowed the Bill. Thirdly, he said that it would save money, and we now know that two thirds of that money comes from the fact that it is supposed that old lags with many previous convictions who now get 11 months' imprisonment will get just three and a half months from the magistrates. Does the Prime Minister accept that all his reasons were wrong?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that any of them are wrong. I will send the right hon. and learned Gentleman the comments of the Lord Chief Justice supporting what we are doing. I will send him the comments of the royal commission supporting such a change. I will also send him the evidence from Scotland, where they have had such a change for many years without any of the problems that he claims for it here. As for the spending gains, yes the Bill will free up extra resources for the criminal justice system, although I have to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, as a result of his shadow Chancellor, even if it were the right thing to do, he could not afford to do it.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Time's up.

National Lottery (Community Chest)

Mr. Derek Wyatt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the National Lottery Act 1998 to require lottery terminals to double as internet access points and a proportion of revenue from ticket sales to be kept in a community chest.
There are so many people in the Chamber; I did not appreciate how much interest there was in the Bill.
The Bill is in two parts. The first is a measure to ensure that there is a network of terminals for the lottery in every community throughout the United Kingdom. Local post offices will often be the most appropriate sites for that access, particularly in remote and rural areas, but we should also consider shops, petrol stations and village halls.
Under the original legislation there were supposed to be 35,000 lottery terminals, but there are now only 24,300 terminals in the UK. Highly populated urban centres are much better served than our more isolated rural communities. The Bill will ensure universal access to the national lottery.
In addition, all post office branches, local shops and petrol stations should have lottery terminals to access the internet for e-mail and e-commerce. Those terminals would quickly create nationwide network access for people who do not have information technology facilities at home. The Bill will help to resolve some of the digital divide—a key subject in last week's G8 talks. We should create 100,000 new terminals.
The measures outlined in my Bill provide a much-needed boost for local post offices, which already provide an array of services to the community in addition to postal services. They are crucial for the dissemination of information, and they are a focus for local people to meet. We must find more creative new roles for them, and I suggest that this is one of those.
The second part of the Bill seeks to introduce an additional cause: the community awards cause. Currently, there are six good causes: arts, charities, sport, millennium, heritage and the New Opportunities Fund. At the end of the year, the millennium cause will cease and

the six will become five. The Bill seeks to create a new cause: the community chest. I know that the Sports Council for Wales already has that cause.
Research by the House of Commons Library—I commend the report to the House and urge Members to read and digest its findings—demonstrates some interesting statistics. I have taken four constituencies at random: Sedgefield; Richmond, Yorks; Ross, Skye and Inverness, West; and Sittingbourne and Sheppey.
Since 1994, Sedgefield constituents have spent £537 per head on lottery tickets, or nearly £41 million. However, they have won only £5.3 million in lottery awards. Richmond has spent £334 per head of adult population, or £36 million, but has received just under £7 million in lottery awards. Ross, Skye and Inverness, West clearly knows something. It has spent £502 per head of adult population, which means expenditure of £30 million on tickets, and has received almost £10.5 million in return. Sittingbourne and Sheppey has spent £672 per head, or expenditure of £43.5 million, but has won only £1.2 million.
My Bill seeks to change the nature of the lottery good causes. It proposes introducing a new cause, the community chest, which will receive 20 per cent. of the revenue from ticket sales after prize money and costs have been allocated in each constituency.
The community chest good cause would still be able to spend revenues only on the five existing causes. The difference would be that it would be quicker than the current bureaucratic system, more effective and—dare I say it—more popular.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Derek Wyatt, Mrs. Diana Organ, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Lawrie Quinn.

NATIONAL LOTTERY (COMMUNITY CHEST)

Mr. Derek Wyatt: accordingly presented a Bill to amend the National Lottery Act 1998 to require lottery terminals to double as internet access points and a proportion of revenue from ticket sales to be kept in a community chest: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 November, and to be printed [Bill 171].

Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: In 1992, when the House elected me to be Speaker, I pledged two things: to do my best to justify its confidence, and to do all in my powers to preserve and to cherish its traditions. Now, as I prepare to lay down this great office, it is for you to judge my performance against those promises. Be assured that on this occasion, I shall not rule you out of order.
For my part, being Speaker has afforded me a unique opportunity to serve Parliament, for which I am immensely grateful. However, before I go further, I wish to thank those who have given me such loyal service throughout the years. Although—thank goodness for me, and for you too—I have not come anywhere near Speaker Onslow's record of 31 years in this Chair, I have nevertheless seen three Clerks of the House, each giving invaluable service—Sir Clifford Boulton, Sir Donald Limon and the current occupant, Bill McKay. To each of them I owe a very great deal.
I also wish to pay tribute to my two secretaries. Sir Peter Kitcatt steered me through the first very strange and very demanding days of my new job and gave me absolutely splendid support. I was very fortunate, too, in his successor, Nicolas Bevan, who came new to the House, but swiftly acquired an encyclopaedic knowledge not only of Members' names and interests, but of the ways of Westminster. Since 1993 he has been constantly at my side, whether in this House or on visits abroad—never tiring, never ruffled, but showing great patience, great loyalty and personal commitment. My very best thanks go to Nicolas.
I owe a debt of thanks also to all the others who have served on my office and constituency staff, and on my personal staff in Speaker's House—and, of course, to the Deputy Speakers who throughout the years have supported me so well.
When I first entered the House, the Speaker was Selwyn Lloyd, and I recall his leaving speech. He paid very generous tribute to the Members of those days, but he went out of his way to mention what he described as their "collective faults". He summed those up as long-windedness, sedentary interruptions, points of order that are not points of order, and an inability to scrutinise Bills and statutory instruments as they should be scrutinised. Things don't change much, do they?
One of the privileges of the Speaker is to be able to represent this House abroad, both at Speakers' Conferences and on bilateral visits. I am glad to have been able to accept invitations to represent Westminster in every continent, and to have visited many countries, both large and small, on your behalf. What has always come across clearly to me is the respect felt abroad for the British system of parliamentary democracy. It comes across especially between the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe, where there is a very keen desire to learn from our experience as they develop their own systems of government. I know that the advice and assistance that we are able to give at both parliamentary and staff level are enormously appreciated.
Sadly, however, I have to say that the high reputation of Westminster abroad is not entirely reflected at home. I know from my postbag how much disillusion about the

political process there is among the general public. The level of cynicism about Parliament, and the accompanying alienation of many of the young from the democratic process, is troubling. It is an issue on which every Member of the House should wish to reflect. It is our responsibility, each and every one of us, to do what we can to develop and build public trust and confidence.
Let us make a start by remembering that the function of Parliament is to hold the Executive to account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the role for which history has cast the Commons. It is the core task of Members not merely to act as representatives of their constituents, important though that certainly is. It is in Parliament in the first instance that Ministers must explain and justify their policies. Since becoming Speaker in 1992, I have made my views known about that, both publicly and behind the scenes, to both Governments. I have taken action to ensure that those who advise Ministers should never overlook the primacy of Parliament. This is the chief forum of the nation—today, tomorrow and, I hope, for ever.
Question Time offers a prime opportunity to hold Ministers to account, and I share the disappointment at the slow progress that is made. Too many Back-Bench Members are being deprived, by the long-windedness of colleagues, of their chance to question Ministers. We are not moving down the Order Paper as we should. There is also an issue of quality as well as quantity. There is, from time to time, a risk that engagement with the real issues is seen to be overshadowed by political point scoring simply for its own sake.
Parliament's other prime function is the scrutiny of Government legislation. There is, I believe, throughout the House a general recognition that that is an area ripe for improvement. Committees of the House, as well as outside bodies, are making a substantial contribution to the debate. The issues are serious and complex, and there is no simple solution. The debate should not be conducted on party lines—nor on the simplistic basis of the Executive versus the rest of us. The objective, to my mind, must be improved scrutiny leading to better legislation—perhaps through the greater use of pre-legislative arrangements; I think that they might be useful to us. Again, the issue is as much one of quality of scrutiny as of quantity.
Futhermore, the House must be prepared to put in the hours necessary to carry out effective examination of the Government's legislative programme. If that means long days, or rearrangement of the parliamentary year, so be it. Of course, I have been here long enough to recognise the importance of enabling parliamentarians to enjoy a domestic life; it should not be impossible to meet both objectives—but where there is a clash, the requirements of effective scrutiny and the democratic process must take priority over the convenience of Members.
Those of you who were here when I submitted myself to the will of the House in 1992 will recall that I said, in all honesty, that for me the Commons had never been just a career; it had been my life. Now, after eight and a half years as Speaker, that is more true than ever. Quite apart from the honour of being Speaker and the many fascinations of the work, I have enjoyed the job. I was going to say that I have enjoyed every minute of it. Let me say that I have enjoyed almost every minute of it. That has been helped by the fact that I have presided over a House containing so many characters and so many


stalwart Members, on whom it depends so much. I have not had a boring day in my working life, and for all that, I am grateful to all of you.
When I came to the conclusion that it was right for me to go, my thoughts went to that famous passage in the book of Ecclesiastes, about there being
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.
Well, my dancing days are long past—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and I promise the House that I shall not weep, but I shall certainly mourn the fact that an all-important phase in my life has come to a natural end. However, it is time for laughter as well, as we remember all the lighter moments that we have enjoyed together—

Mr. Chris Ruane: Name them.

Madam Speaker: There's an old sourpuss over there!
I say to you, rejoice in your inheritance, defend your rights and remember always that the privileges the House enjoys were dearly won and must never be squandered. You elected me in the springtime, and I shall retire in the autumn, which marks a fitting seasonal conclusion to my period in office. Therefore I say to you all, in a phrase that you all know so well, but which has never been more true than now: "Time's up." [Applause.]

Retirement of Madam Speaker

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I beg to move,
That this House records its appreciation of the great distinction with which the Right Honourable Betty Boothroyd has occupied the office of Speaker; congratulates her on the skilful manner in which she has upheld the authority and dignity of this House; appreciates the wisdom, good humour and skill with which she has presided over its affairs, which are universally admired both in this country and abroad; and accordingly expresses its warmest thanks to the Right Honourable Member for her many services to this House; and unites in wishing her a long and happy retirement.
Madam Speaker, it is pleasure to be the first to speak to the motion and to address my remarks to you, confident that I am speaking for everyone in the Chamber. You have been a truly outstanding Speaker and you have greatly enhanced the reputation of your office. You have presided over the House with authority and impartiality and, not least, with warmth and humour. Your tenure of the speakership has been characterised above all by your transparent love of this place and all that it stands for. As you said on your election:
I have been a Member for nearly 20 years. For me, the Commons has never been just a career: it is my life.
You repeated that to us this afternoon.
Madam Speaker, you first came to the Commons more than 40 years ago as a secretary to a Member. In 1973, you were elected Member of Parliament for West Bromwich, West, and for more than a quarter of a century you have given exceptional service as a constituency Member also. Among those who will miss you most as you retire are your numerous friends in the black country.
When elected Speaker, quite characteristically you said at the time:
I realise the weight of responsibility. It is something more massive, more demanding than anything that I have known before.
It is, indeed, one of the toughest jobs in politics, and historically one not without risk. You, Madam Speaker, are the 155th occupant of the Chair. Some of your predecessors faced severe problems. During the reign of Henry VI, four Speakers were lost in the 10 years between 1461 and 1471. Two were beheaded, one was imprisoned and one was killed at the battle of Tewkesbury. That puts the problems of handling my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) into proper perspective.
Your judgments, made as they so often have to be, instantaneously—I believe that I speak for everyone—have been unerringly sound and fair. You can calm the House when it is angry and defuse it when it is tense. We all fear your knack of the legendary stifled yawn, which has been one of the most effective ways of bringing Members to a close.
Above all, however, you are a passionate parliamentarian. You are also—this has been another key to your success—a passionate Back Bencher. I know that there was one short aberration. For a few months between 1974 and 1975 you were an assistant Government Whip. I understand that, greatly to your credit, you were never entirely comfortable in that role.
In your acceptance speech on 27 April 1992, you summed up your feelings like this:
I have been a Deputy Speaker, but always at heart I have been a Back Bencher, and…I have never sought, and I have never expected, to occupy one of the great offices of Government.—[Official Report, 27 April 1992; Vol. 207, c. 15.]


You may never have held one of the great offices of Government, but you have held and enriched the greatest office in Parliament.
Your decision to step down, Madam Speaker, was one of the best-kept secrets in politics. The clapping at that time and today may have been out of order, and there will have been part of you, with your strong sense of the traditions of this place, that perhaps felt disapproval. However, you will know, then and today, that it was a spontaneous expression of the House's deep affection for you.
It is not only people in this country who are going to miss you. You will be missed by people in many countries of the world. You have been a great ambassador for this Parliament and a passionate supporter of the Commonwealth. As we know, Prime Minister's Question Time is broadcast in many other countries, and while the performance of individual Members is not always greeted with acclamation, you receive rave reviews and, I am told, sackfuls of fan mail. You must let me into the secret.
You have spoken for the House on many historic occasions. I think for many of us the most memorable and moving was seeing you walk down the steps of Westminster Hall hand in hand with Nelson Mandela on his first official visit here as South Africa's President.
The role of Speaker, as you know better than us, can be a lonely one. You were always, by nature, a gregarious Back Bencher, enjoying the companionship of the Commons. But while maintaining the dignity of your office, you have never seemed remote, either to Members or to members of the public.
The House will miss you greatly. We would have liked you to continue. It is your decision, not ours that "time's up." But I am very mindful of your strict instruction to us a fortnight ago that we must be happy for you. Well, we are. Have a long and happy retirement. And do so in the certain knowledge that your great affection and respect for the House is reciprocated in the great affection and respect that the House feels for you.

Mr. William Hague: It is an enormous pleasure on this occasion to support every word that the Prime Minister said and wholeheartedly to endorse the motion in his name.
For all of us, Madam Speaker, your retirement will mark the end of an era. Ever since I was elected to the House in 1989, you have occupied the Chair, first as Deputy Speaker, then as Speaker since 1992. For me and many other hon. Members, it is hard to imagine the Chamber without you sitting in that Chair.
Your election to the speakership was, of course, historic. After 700 years and 154 Speakers, the House finally elected a woman to take the Chair. I trust that the House will not take it as anything more than a general comment when I express my hope that you will be the first in a long line of distinguished Madam Speakers.
One of the reasons for that is that your speakership has been an outstanding success, as the Prime Minister said. That is true of the way in which you have conducted the day-to-day business of the House, and of the standing in which Parliament is held throughout the world. You have been a truly magnificent ambassador for the House in international gatherings and in welcoming distinguished visitors here.
In your eight years as Speaker, you have become a national and international figure, with your inimitable call to order instantly recognisable around the world—augmented in pitch by a packet of cigarettes every day. While the televising of our proceedings has no doubt been a major factor in your worldwide profile—coverage of Prime Minister's questions has turned you into a cult figure in the United States—it is also in no small part due to the authority and unique personality that you have stamped on the Chamber.
You have governed the House with exemplary courtesy, charm and, when necessary, a little firmness, on one occasion even turning off the microphone of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in full flow—not something that many of us would ever dare to do. Ministers prone to long-winded replies and even long-winded questioners have been subjected to a well executed and exaggerated yawn, which it turns out even the Prime Minister has noticed.
Much of the success of your job depends not just on knowledge of procedure and close attention to the minute details of Commons rules, but to the wise interpretation of those rules. As one of your distinguished predecessors, Mr. Speaker Lowther, said:
The office of Speaker does not demand rare qualities. It demands common qualities in rare degree.
In carrying out your duties in the House, you have more than lived up to that criterion, and you have always been a source of wise counsel for a young Back Bencher or a seasoned Minister.
Defending the best traditions of the House is rightly one of the characteristics of your speakership for which you will be most remembered. You reaffirmed that in your statement today. You have been a redoubtable champion of the rights of Back Benchers of whatever party to hold Ministers to account, and in an age of spin doctors and soundbites, you have been insistent in calling on Ministers to make their policy announcements in the House. At a time when, to many, Parliament has appeared increasingly marginalised, you have done more than anyone to try to reassert its central role in our democracy and to resist its downgrading.
It has been said before that the position of Speaker in the House can be a lonely one. You are by tradition cut off from your previous party affiliations and the occasional refuge of the Tea Room, the Smoking Room and even the Bar, but you have been anything but cut off from the House and its Members. That has been true in your dealings with Members conducting parliamentary business, and it has also been evident in the magnificent hospitality that you have shown to Members and the innumerable charities and outside organisations which have been entertained in Speaker's House over the past eight years.
You said again today that for you the Commons had never been just a career—it was your life. After nearly 20 years as a Back Bencher and nearly eight years as our Speaker, nobody can doubt that. However, even that should not obscure the work that you have done outside the House with charities, your constituents in West Bromwich, West and in your position as chancellor of the Open university, which I know means so much to you.
Now you have an opportunity to have a life once more outside the Chamber, some of it, we hope, not too far away, but you will also be able to concentrate more time


on one or two of your other great loves—visiting exotic places, and even hang-gliding when you get there. As we wish you a successful, long and happy retirement, you leave us in the sure knowledge that you have made an historic contribution to the House of Commons, and with our profoundest admiration and respect.

4 pm

Mr. Charles Kennedy: It is sometimes remarked about the cockpit that is the House of Commons that instinctive all-party agreement usually means that the wrong decision will be reached. However, I think that the instinctive all-party agreement with which the House of Commons happily subscribes to the motion moved by the Prime Minister is a rare and telling example of hon. Members being collectively sincere and correct. I am very happy to associate myself and my party with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative party.
As has been said, Madam Speaker, you are the 155th Speaker of the House of Commons, but the first woman to occupy that historic post. All of us in politics who want there to be more women in this Chamber, either in the Chair or elsewhere, can look to you as a source of inspiration when it comes to the success of women in politics. However, there is a need for further success for women in politics in general.
Unlike some of your predecessors, you have never lost your head, either physically or metaphorically. You have presided over our daily dealings in this Chamber with charm and dignity, and also with the authority that all hon. Members require. I have acquired new responsibilities this Session, and I know that I speak for my predecessor as leader of the Liberal Democrat party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown), when I say that you have been a constant source of private advice and encouragement. I address you as Madam Speaker, and you call me "love"—which is a lot more affectionate than what I sometimes get called by my hon. Friends. You and I have even been known to share a fag together, and such memories are very welcome.
You were determined to become a Member of Parliament, Madam Speaker. You had to try five times to get elected to this place, but you made a sensational success of your parliamentary career when you got here. That tenacity is something that hon. Members of all parties can readily acknowledge.
The distinguished parliamentary commentator Norman Shrapnel once observed that too much silence in the Chamber was probably more ominous in a parliamentary democracy than too much noise. Sometimes we are too noisy, but let us never be silent. A good House of Commons should do its job, and that is what you have done, Madam Speaker. Many salutes—we wish you well

Mr. David Trimble: It is a great pleasure, Madam Speaker, to endorse the motion moved by the Prime Minister, to which the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West

(Mr. Kennedy), have spoken. I entirely endorse everything that they have said, as do all my Ulster Unionist colleagues.
My party is one of the smallest in the House. My hon. Friends and I depend on the Chair to help us to contribute to the workings of the House. I want to extend to you, Madam Speaker, our appreciation of what you, and the Deputy Speakers, have done during your speakership to defend the traditions of the House and the position of the smaller parties.
In your comments, Madam Speaker, you invited us to pass judgment on the way in which you have discharged your role. The best judgment that I can make—and I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members in the House—is that I know that we did the right thing when we elected you in 1992. The statement that you made earlier confirms me in that knowledge. You reasserted the core functions of the House, which are to hold the Executive to account and to scrutinise legislation.
I would like to express in particular my appreciation of what you have said this afternoon, Madam Speaker. It is a very timely reminder to all of us of what we are primarily here for. You are quite right to say that, in some sections of public opinion, there is a degree of scepticism or cynicism about politics in general and the operations of this House. If anything, that cynicism has increased in recent years—perhaps inevitably, in a House with such a huge Government majority.
It is very important to reassert, as you have done, our primary function in terms of holding the Government to account and scrutinising legislation, and also to emphasise our need of the time to do that on the Floor of the House. It has been, I think, a retrograde step in recent years—indeed, in recent weeks—that time for debate and consideration has been curtailed so often. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will reflect on the very wise words that you have uttered this afternoon.
Madam Speaker, you are, of course, the servant of the House, and you have been a magnificent servant of the House. You have also enhanced the standing of the House in the eyes of the public, not just here in the United Kingdom but elsewhere. We owe you a very great debt of gratitude, which I wish to express to you. I also wish you all the best on your retirement—I am sure that you will find many useful things to do in its service in various forms in the future.

Sir Edward Heath: Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of occupying the Chair for the first time when you were elected Speaker. This provided me with certain problems, because I felt that it would quite wrong of me to exercise any judgment or express any views whatever on the election, lest all my colleagues here might think that I was trying to influence the outcome.
I find myself in a rather similar position once again in regard to the election of your successor in some three months' time. I propose to adopt the same attitude. It is not for me, in any way, to try to influence opinion. However, last night I signed a letter, which covers all the basics of the election of the Speaker and is being circulated to all Members of the House. They can form their own judgments on it and decide how they will react to it. I shall only add that, to any who wish to make


inquiries about it, I shall be available over the next three months—in some part of the world or other—[Laughter.] I will gladly answer inquiries—provided, of course, that hon. Members pay the telephone charges.
You, Madam Speaker, have occupied the Chair during two quite distinct periods of British politics. First, you were Speaker for a Government on the decline who had been in office for 18 years. Secondly, you were in office for a new Government of a different party, with one of the largest majorities in history. Looking back over it, I cannot recall any incident in which your conduct or comments aroused any real differences within this Chamber. That is probably the most remarkable thing of all in the years I have been in the House—now more than 50—and on that, I congratulate you most sincerely.
It was all summed up in the last words of your introductory speech, when you said:
I now have to offer myself as the voice of the House—sensitive to the concerns of every Member, aware of the supreme duty of the Speaker to safeguard the rights of this House…—[Official Report, 27 April 1992; Vol. 207, c. 16.]
If I may say so, Madam Speaker, you have lived up to that standard to the greatest possible degree. I would like to express my personal admiration for you and for all you have done, and to thank you from the depths of my heart.

Mr. Peter Snape: Madam Speaker, the respect and affection in which you are held by all hon. Members is reflected in the shock that we felt when we heard your first announcement two weeks ago. There was genuine sorrow on both sides of the House that you should make, inevitably, the decision that you did, but that shock and sorrow are reflected in the constituency that you have represented with such distinction for so many years, and equally in my constituency, in the black country and in the west midlands generally.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded the House that, Madam Speaker, you were first elected at a by-election in 1973. For eight months or so, you represented constituents, who, in that short period, came into the new West Bromwich, East constituency—others went into the constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It says something for the impression that you made in those nine short months that, 26 and a half years later, many of my constituents still think that you represent them—

Madam Speaker: And still write to me.

Mr. Snape: I suspect that at least half of them wish you still did represent them.
If I may, Madam Speaker, I shall detain the House for a few moments with a couple of stories about the many years that you and I have served together, representing the borough of West Bromwich. We were elected in February 1974, and the old stagers among us will remember that it was pretty grim winter, but I shall avoid the political reasons behind that; I speak purely of the weather. You may remember, Madam Speaker, that when the results were declared, the then town clerk—that is what they were called in those days, with a salary to match—marched us through the back door of the Gala baths, past the empty dustbins and the stray cats in the town hall

yard, through the back door of the town hall and down the empty corridors at 1.40 in the morning, and then proceeded to read out the results to an empty and snow-swept high street. I remember that, when we at last found some licensed premises, within the hour, you said, "Snapey, there will be some changes around here." [Laughter.] Sure enough, there have been some changes.
On another occasion, we decided, perhaps unwisely, to attend the West Bromwich carnival, sharing a pony and trap. It was a very small trap and a rather small pony, and in those politically incorrect days, Madam Speaker, you and I had not achieved the slim and sylph-like figures that we possess today. Half way down the high street, the shafts broke; the pony departed; and we were left with our legs in the air, facing the sky. "Now then, Snapey", you said, "you reckon to be a transport expert—get us out of this one." I am afraid, Madam Speaker, that I failed as miserably then as I have in other matters since.
The way in which you have represented the boroughs of West Bromwich and Sandwell and the Black Country as a whole has endeared you enormously to the people there, Madam Speaker. Their views were perhaps best reflected in the article written following your original statement by our good friend, Ken Tudor, in our local paper, the Express and Star. He said:
Over the years I have watched her battle for constituents, reminding officials they worked for the people and that everyone deserved respect.
In those moods she is a formidable woman, her manicured and expertly varnished fingers fencing in front of her as she puts her points over. Betty in that mood is the match for anyone, and always has the last word.
Well, I can say, with the benefit of having worked alongside you for 27 and a half years, that we have never had a cross word, largely because, like most males in such circumstances, I have never dared answer you back.
It has been an enormous privilege for me to work alongside you during these years, and on behalf of your colleagues in the west midlands group of Labour Members, dating from your time when you were a member of that group, and your constituents—and mine, too—in West Bromwich, Wednesbury, Oldbury, Tividale, Tipton and Blackheath, I would wish you to know how much you are loved and respected by all of them. No matter what honours are rightly heaped upon you in the years to come, among your parliamentary colleagues and your constituents across the Black Country, you will always be known as "Our Betty."

Mr. Tony Senn: One of the things of which I am proudest is that, way back in the 1960s, I came to support you, Madam Speaker, when you stood for Parliament. Forty years ago, of course, I did not realise that you would be the Speaker of the House.
I shall take up one point that you made in your statement: you have brought happiness to the House, and that has been reflected in how the House responded to your statement and among the many of us who have enjoyed your hospitality. I do not know whether this is true, but the story goes that the Father of the House made it possible for you to have a piano in the Speaker's House. If that is so, he brought his musical talents to bear in such a way as to make your evening parties more enjoyable.
You are the eighth Speaker under whom I have sat, and I can think of none who has had to cope with such massive changes. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh


Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Mayor of London are all represented in the House, and we have also had to deal with Members of the European Parliament and the growth of the media. You have turned your mind to the constitutional changes that we need. As we move more and more towards a presidential system of government, you have asserted yourself as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. There is a difference, as you have said, between an executive and a representative body.
In addition, Madam Speaker, you have interpreted democracy not in terms of directives from above and discipline, but in terms of the debate, diversity, disagreement and decision that are the mainspring of a democratic Parliament. You have also represented us brilliantly abroad.
You said, Madam Speaker, that you would not call us to order during this debate, so I shall break all the rules of "Erskine May" and the House by saying what I know we all want to say—"Goodbye, Betty, and thank you for all that you have done."

Mr. John MacGregor: Madam Speaker, as a former Leader of the House and as the Member who seconded your nomination for the speakership, I want to add just a few words of my own. I can do so briefly because I agree with all the sentiments expressed so far.
We all had high expectations of you when you became Speaker, and you have far more than fulfilled them. You have shown a great mastery over the House, with appropriate firmness and with your sense of humour, tact and a twinkle in your eye whenever appropriate. I should like to comment on two of the points that you made earlier, which are important to you and to us.
First, the supremacy of Parliament is not just about statements being made here rather than on the "Today" programme. The issue goes much deeper than that. As a Minister in various Departments, I constantly found myself reminding officials that every policy had to be tested in Parliament, and that Parliament came first. I had also to remind them that I had a constituency responsibility that was also a high priority. You, Madam Speaker, have constantly reasserted the supremacy of Parliament.
Secondly, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, you have maintained our traditions superbly at a time of great change. Above all, you have recognised the realities of this place. We are not good at scrutinising various aspects of the Executive, particularly when it comes to secondary legislation. We must recognise that that means long hours and a heavy responsibility. I am grateful for the way in which you have always stressed those points.
Finally, reference has been made to the hospitality that you have shown to many of us and our spouses and families. We are all deeply grateful for it. On the many occasions on which my wife and I have hugely enjoyed that hospitality, you have demonstrated that you are a superb impresario, a great controller of events and a magnificent mistress of ceremonies. Bearing in mind the period when you trod the boards, I can also say that you

are still a pretty impressive performer when you go before an audience. You have shown those qualities both in your hospitality and in this Chamber.
I thank you personally for all that you have done and I wish you well in what I am sure will be not a retirement but a long, happy and fulfilling life to come.

Mr. Clive Soley: When you took the Chair in this great democratic Chamber, Madam Speaker, you made history, but I know better than most that you would not have been content to make it simply by being the first woman Speaker, important though that is. You wanted to—and did—stamp your authority and personality on this Chamber and you have done so in a way to which many hon. Members have referred in this short debate. I echo all their comments.
I must also say something about time and chance in political careers. Much has been said about your earlier life, of which I know little and will therefore say less, but one aspect of it was drawn to my attention today by a rather sad event. I heard of the funeral of Ken Lornas, who was the Member of Parliament for Huddersfield, West. I think that he beat you by a fairly small margin to be selected as the Labour candidate for that seat in 1962. But for time and chance, which affect what happens in our lives, we might never have had Madam Speaker and we would all have been the losers.
Recently, we have not always seen eye to eye on some aspects of the modernisation of the House—I have heard comments this afternoon about its importance. Throughout, you have held firm about the importance of defending Back Benchers' rights and of remembering that we are all here to represent the people who put us here. That is important.
I think that we all came to this House to make history, not merely to relive it. In doing so, we need to change. This House and some of its greatest Speakers have produced change and there has always been anxiety, stress and concern about whether the change is going in the right direction. My view is that the modernisation is, and that we need to improve the quality of the way in which we use time here, rather than focus on the quantity of that time. I think that we will do that.
What you have left me with in that debate, Madam Speaker, is the idea that we must ensure that we do not lose sight of the importance of the Back Bencher. You and all those who have gone before you have kept that firmly in their thoughts and I hope that all those who come after you will also do so. If we modernise the House with that thought in mind, we will succeed. We will look back and see areas where we have got it right and somewhere we have got it wrong, but we will know that we have continued to develop the proud traditions of democracy in this House. For all of that, thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I also wish you a very happy retirement.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Madam Speaker, when I was offered the opportunity to propose you—not once, I am happy to say, but twice—as the occupant of the Chair, I realised that it was a most exciting and wonderful day. Today shows that everyone not only acknowledges that you have been a unique


Speaker, but that you have been a very special one. I do not mean that that is because you were the first woman Speaker; it is because you have brought to the office a quality of great humanity. You understand that this mixed body of men and women—who are all different and who all, on occasions, have pointed interests—are bound together by their commitment to the democratic system and their desire to represent what is good, what is best and what is important for their constituents.
We have heard of the many virtues that you have displayed and we all know about those. For me, the most important things have been your intelligence, your ability to listen to everyone from every part of the House and to bind us all together on that occasion when that was tremendously important, and above all, the fact that you have increasingly created a special role for the United Kingdom. You have done that.
I do not know whether you understand quite how unique you are within our politics. The voters see you as the representative of all that is good. Sometimes, they love it when you shout at Members, or when you represent with jokes the important aspects of our work. Above all, what they like about you is that they identify with you and feel that you are, indeed, "Our Betty".
I shall highlight one or two personal memories that are important to me. You and I have had some good old battles on various matters. However, when you leave the Speaker's House, for me there will not merely be sadness at your leaving official office, because of all the work that you have done in that capacity, but at the loss of certain very personal qualities. I think of the person who had worked here for 35 years but had not set foot in the Speaker's House, who stood alongside me at one of your parties and said, "This is the proudest day of my life." That kind of commitment and the understanding that we all have a piece of you is tremendously important.
Madam Speaker, if I were to be honest, the great state occasions when your natural dignity has incredibly enhanced the role of Speaker, have been significant. Certainly, seeing you walk down the stairs with Nelson Mandela is a memory that will stick in my mind for ever—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. I also have personal memories, and I hope that you will forgive me if I highlight them. One is of you hanging out of a window at Speaker's House on the eve of the millennium, shouting "Happy new year" to everyone and getting a roar of recognition such as I have never heard in my life. For me, that was marvellous.
I do not need to tell you that you will be missed, Madam Speaker. You have presided over very real changes and, because you care about Back Benchers, you have been prepared to encourage experiments such as the extension of debate to Westminster Hall, changes in our hours and differences in the ways in which we operate. However, you were prepared to talk to everybody about what that would mean and how it should be carried forward.
I know that you will have a wonderful time, Madam Speaker. If I have one slight disagreement with you today, it is this. Many things will happen to you, you have a lot to do and many places to go to, but I simply do not believe that your dancing days are over.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Madam Speaker, there are myriad reasons why the memories of your speakership will live on in the minds of those of us who have been lucky enough to serve in this House during your remarkable tenure of office.
Madam Speaker, events outside the Chamber, such as your doing the Lambeth Walk in your apartments will be remembered for ever by those of us who were there. Of course, the mainsprings of memory are events in the Chamber, membership of which confers on you the authority that you exercise so notably on our behalf and much to our, and Parliament's, advantage. One afternoon in April 1992, I congratulated you and said that I would seek to remain within the bounds of order. You have richly rewarded me wholly beyond my desserts, however poor my self-discipline.
All of us view you from subjective perspectives but, on everyone's behalf, your speakership has been distinguished, robust, warm, direct, colourful, candid and kind. I have particular reason to know how fortunate I have been to serve in the Chamber in the last eight and a half years, and I am delighted that you have clearly enjoyed that time every bit as much. Thank you, Madam Speaker; I support the Prime Minister's motion.

Mr. David Marshall: Madam Speaker, for more than eight years, since April 1992, you have been the honorary president of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has over 1,200 members from both Houses of Parliament, including associate members.
In the past six years, as vice-chairman and then chairman, I have had the pleasure and privilege of working with you on IPU matters, Madam Speaker. You have supported strongly the aims and values of the IPU and you have given a great deal of your time to our work, as well as taking great interest in it. You have presided over our annual general meetings, taken an active role in the selection of delegations to other countries and entertained many of the numerous parliamentarians from other IPU member countries who visit this country. You have done all of that with tremendous enthusiasm and great good humour.
Madam Speaker, you are the best known Speaker in the world, and at all of the IPU international conferences—which you, of course, cannot attend—many parliamentarians from the 139 member nations ask after you kindly and express their admiration for you. It is therefore appropriate that one of your last acts as Speaker of the House will be to represent the mother of Parliaments at the special IPU millennium conference of Presiding Officers of national Parliaments which will be held in the United Nations building in New York at the end of August and in which you will play a major role.
Madam Speaker, I very much regret the fact that you will not now preside over our AGM in the autumn, when I will stand down as chairman, having completed my three years in office. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to say a big thank you from all the members of the IPU for all your unstinting efforts on our behalf.
Two weeks ago, when you announced your intention to relinquish the position of Speaker, you said to the House, "Be happy for me". I, for one, am very happy for you and I wish you most sincerely a long, happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As one who has also been bitten by the retirement bug, may I associate myself and my colleagues in Plaid Cymru with today's motion and the comments that have been made? I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the way in which you have handled the House with fairness to all parties, and acknowledge the way in which you have perhaps protected me from myself. During your time in the Chair, I have not been the recipient of a red card or been led to break the Speaker's Chair, which, regrettably, I cannot say for earlier periods.
You have presided over a period of significant constitutional change. You have had to deal with new institutions—the National Assembly for Wales; the Scottish Parliament; and changes in Northern Ireland—and the consequential effects that those have had on our procedures. "Erskine May" will rely heavily on the rulings that you made during that period.
When you were elected, you quoted Mr. Speaker Weatherill, who said that a Speaker has no friends. You will know by now that that just is not true. You will leave with the friendship of the whole House, and we wish you iechyd, hir oes a hapusrwydd—health, a long life and happiness—and many joyous memories of a job well done.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: The privilege and honour of speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party falls to me. May I convey to you, Madam Speaker, the apologies for the absence of my leader, who is not well?
Those of us in the minor parties in the House owe you a great debt of gratitude for your tolerance, understanding and help, both personal and on a party basis. The years in which you have held office have been difficult for parliamentary representatives from Northern Ireland, because we have had a great distraction from the affairs of this House as a result of the events occurring in our constituencies. You, in particular, took great cognisance of, and interest in, those difficulties and made allowances for us when, over that period, we failed to appear in the House at appropriate times. For that, we are individually and collectively extremely grateful.
Other speakers this evening have eloquently expressed, on behalf of the minor parties, the great care that you always took to ensure that minority opinions were heard on both sides of the House. You added that essential dimension to the debates in this Chamber. We shall always remember that and we hope that it will be continued by your successor. The example that you have set will be difficult to follow, but the atmosphere that you have created in the House will no doubt continue in your absence.
On a personal basis, most of us have appreciated the entertainment in your chambers. Perhaps I should rephrase that: we have appreciated the delights of cultural

activity and the gatherings for music, wining and dining. By that mechanism, you put each of us at ease when we came to the Floor of the House.
We are grateful for your end-of-term report, which you gave the House this evening and which we must all take on board, ponder and act upon in the coming years. You will have been pleased that, at what was perhaps your last performance in the House, you played to a full House. I had great difficulty in getting a seat, as there was standing room only. That is the ultimate tribute to any office or performance. Thank you very much for all that you have done for us. We wish you many happy years of retirement ad multos annos.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In the 30 years and more that I have been in the House, Madam Speaker, I have sat under various Speakers—that is, when I was permitted to sit under them, because some of them had me removed, as you did yourself.
I understand that when you fought your last election, you wore a green rosette. It was not the green of my friend, if I might call him that, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady); it was the green of this House of Commons. Nevertheless, although you wore that green rosette for your election, you have dealt fairly with those who would rather have the orange.
At the beginning of my parliamentary career, I listened intently to the various Speakers of the House. Speaker King was a man of very distinguished character. Speaker Lloyd was a different character altogether. Perhaps he was distinguished in the Chair as being not distinguished at all. He was not a very distinguished Chairman, probably because he had been in the Cabinet too long, and I do not think that Cabinet Ministers make good Speakers.
Speakers Thomas and Weatherill were very distinguished, although different. People always asked who would follow the acts of Speakers Thomas and Weatherill, but you, Madam Speaker, have more than followed them, and you have today seen the unanimity that is in the House. It is not often that I can say a loud "Amen" to what the Prime Minister says, or even to what the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the official Unionist party says—[Interruption.] We did walk together at one time.
You, Madam Speaker, gave the House at a difficult time in the politics of this United Kingdom a salutary example of what can be done by one parliamentarian, determined and dedicated to the task that was given to you. When you were elected I said that I could not have gone home if I had not voted for you, because I would have had to face the wrath of four Paisley ladies. I did not say that I was more afraid of the dog, who was also a female, because I might have been bitten on the calf, but I will say it today, and I am glad that my wife is present in the House for the occasion of your farewell.
Your unyielding determination to control the House and yet, as we would say in Ulster, give it its head, was amazing, and everyone here today admits that. I remember the day when I had a real tangle with you, Madam Speaker, and I was removed from the Chamber. At the end of the day. I actually walked out—I have been carried out from other places at various times—but out of respect to you I left the Chamber. The House did divide


and some colleagues supported me. Their number went into two figures, which was a record, I am told, for those who are thrown out of the House.
You, Madam Speaker, have shown stamina of which all of us are jealous. You have kept up with the work load, presided in the House and carried out the many duties attached to your office while always looking well. You were always in tremendous form and you brought a sparkle to the audiences that you addressed. That put back into our public life the fact that Parliament can be interesting. It is a good thing that we all have a sense of humour and that we can all laugh at ourselves. It is a good thing that, in the basics of our calling, we have a dedication to democracy.
I, for one, would like to say that your stand was deeply appreciated in Northern Ireland when an attempt was made to alter the rules of membership of the House so that others should have certain offices. Those who follow my way of life in Northern Ireland admired your stand in defending the ancient rules of the House, saying that the House could not be bullied even by appeals to European courts, but stood on its own as the sovereign Parliament of this United Kingdom.
We salute you, Madam Speaker, today. We wish you well and we believe that there is much ahead of you which will bring much credit to the House, of which you were Speaker, and also to the country that we all love.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Madam Speaker, you and I have one thing in common: we entered this splendid House, the mother of all Parliaments, at by-elections in the early 1970s. I remain firmly ensconced on the Back Benches; you have achieved the highest office that the House has to offer.
One or two hon. Members have reminisced about experiences in your company. I remember an occasion not so long ago when you were entertaining people in your wonderful apartments and you were let down by the pianist. You turned to several colleagues and asked, "Can you find me a pianist?" I fortunately knew of the proficiency on the piano of Sir Ivan Lawrence, who was then Member of Parliament for Burton. He fulfilled the role that was available that night. From then on, he became your in-House pianist.
I rise as the longest serving member of your Chairmen's Panel and as the current Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I salute you for the service that you have given the House in standing up for the authority and integrity of the Chamber of the House of Commons. Time and again, as Speaker, you have expressed your belief in the vital role of the Back Bencher. That is most valuable. It is too easy in a modern Parliament for the role of the Back Bencher to be underestimated and rendered irrelevant. Time and again, through your words and actions, you have shown the political parties and the Government of the day, of whatever party, that the House is about the role of the Back Bencher.
I salute you for the service that you have given as Speaker; it has been truly magnificent. I wish you the very best and happiest of retirements; it is well earned.

Mr. Donald Anderson: We have now reached the stage in our tributes when almost everything that can be said has been said, but not everyone has said it. Politicians will always find an opportunity for saying a few more golden words.
I rise on behalf of the members of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to say thank you, Madam Speaker, for all that you have done for us, and to tell the House about the esteem in which you are held throughout the Commonwealth and by all the many parliamentarians to whom you have given hospitality in what was described as your chambers. In every way, you have shown yourself to be a wonderful Commonwealth figure.
Even before the eight years of your speakership, you were a member of our executive and a joint honorary chairman of our group. During your speakership, you have always gone the extra mile in welcoming Commonwealth parliamentarians to our two main events—the March parliamentary seminar and the May visit. For many, the joyful welcome that you gave them was the highlight of their visit.
One of your last official functions—if not the last—will take place when we hold the millennium conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association here, in the mother of Parliaments, in September. The conference will be held in London and subsequently in Edinburgh. When you made your announcement on 12 July, I was a little afraid that you might not be with us. We were relieved and delighted that you will, as President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, preside at our functions, doubtless in the same happy way in which you have presided over the House.
On behalf of all Commonwealth parliamentarians, I repeat my thanks and wish you a very long and grand retirement.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I happily associate myself and my hon. Friends from the Scottish National party with the motion and, indeed, all the words of praise that have been heaped on you, Madam Speaker, this afternoon. I sincerely thank you for your courtesy, which has meant that you have made yourself available to us when we wished to discuss matters directly with you; for your discipline, which was sometimes directed severely towards these Benches; and for your humour, which has earned you the laughter and love of friends throughout the House.
When you were elected you had the support of all the parties in the House, which in itself was no mean achievement. It is a matter of courtesy to record that you have retained that support during your eight and a half year tenure of office. All those candidates who aspire to be your successor might bear that seriously in mind. From these Benches, we wish you everything that you would wish yourself in your retirement and hope that that retirement will not be too private. We do not see you taking up embroidery and knitting and hope that you will be very much in the public eye and very much involved in public life.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I feel that I should say a few words on your retirement, Madam Speaker. It will cause great sadness among television viewers, and the viewing figures for parliamentary programmes will fall. With all respect to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I know that people such as my neighbour Mike Turnbull and millions of others in the country think that you are the No. 1 attraction in the House. They believe that you perform your role from the Chair with humour, dignity and a character that has endeared you to people way beyond the House, throughout the country and throughout the world who have watched our Parliament on television.
You will recall that I first met you at the Nelson and Colne by-election following the death of Sidney Silverman. I was a full-time party organiser running Bradley ward, one of the key wards in Nelson. It was evident from day one that we would not win because the tide was against us, but Paul Carmody, your agent, had us at the bus station delivering leaflets to shift workers at 5 o'clock in the morning and pushing leaflets through doors, making sure that your face was on the topside. We were not allowed to deliver the leaflets in any other way. In fact, we were given lessons.
Although the result was inevitable, your character and hard work kept the spirit of the workers alive throughout the campaign and they were willing to work right up to the last minute. On polling day, we had so many workers that I was not sure how we would be able to feed them all. Suddenly, a massive van arrived and four people carried out a potato pie. One of the Nelson party members was a master baker and we had the biggest potato pie that I have ever seen in my life.
At the West Bromwich by-election, you took the seat of Maurice Foley, who is perhaps best remembered for his role in the bombing of the wreck of the Torrey Canyon to try to get rid of its oil. In a quirk of fate, I took his council seat in Merton and Morden in 1962 when he resigned to try to get a parliamentary seat. Ultimately, he preceded you in West Bromwich.
You took the Chair as Deputy Speaker on 9 July 1987. On 10 July, when I was in the middle of a speech on industry, I looked up to see that you were in the Chair and, to this day, I remember asking what we should call you. You said, "Call me Madam." I am sure that you remember that that was not accepted for several weeks in the softback edition of Hansard, which continued to print "Mr. Deputy Speaker". However, the bound volumes are correct and you are called what you wanted to be called.

From the moment you said "Call me Madam", you set your seal, and a few years later you became the Speaker of the House.
I thank you for the way in which you have performed your duties during the whole of that period, Madam Speaker. You have been a credit to the House and a credit to all of us. I wish you well on your retirement, and I hope that you enjoy the many years ahead of you.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Madam Speaker, it would be appropriate for the black country to have the last word. As a black country man and a man of few words, all I want to say to you is "yo've been a bosting good spayker." We love you. We think the world of you in the Black Country, as you know. We shall still be together, because you will not be far away from us. On behalf of the Catering Committee, we have bought you a lovely bunch of flowers, and they are outside the Chamber. Thank you for all the work that you have done. We hope that you continue to enjoy your fish, chips and mushy peas. God bless you.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House records its appreciation of the great distinction with which the Right Honourable Betty Boothroyd has occupied the office of Speaker; congratulates her on the skilful manner in which she has upheld the authority and dignity of this House; appreciates the wisdom, good humour and skill with which she has presided over its affairs, which are universally admired both in this country and abroad; and accordingly expresses its warmest thanks to the Right Honourable Member for her many services to this House; and unites in wishing her a long and happy retirement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): May I say to the House on behalf of the three Deputy Speakers, who would otherwise be silent and who have worked closely with Madam Speaker during the past three years, that they wish to be associated with the sentiments that have been encapsulated in the motion passed by the House.

TRUSTEE BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second reading committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1

PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF RELIGION MAY BE REQUIRED

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, after "religion", insert—
'or for giving a false answer to that question'.
The Bill seeks to amend the Census Act 1920, and it is anticipated that the census will take place in April next year. The Bill would permit a question on religion in the next census, and we have said that we would support it if answering the question was voluntary. The 1920 Act does not give the Minister the power to ask such a question, hence the private Member's Bill that is being introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and adopted in Government time.
Having said that we would support the Bill if answering the question were voluntary, we have our doubts about whether it will be voluntary. The long title of the Bill is to
Amend the Census Act 1920 to enable particulars to be required in respect of religion.
In my opinion, the particulars sought are still required in respect of religion. Despite the Minister's assurances, which I accept she has given in good faith, we have our doubts about whether that will be done on a voluntary basis.
I have taken the liberty of seeking a legal opinion from Mr. Leolin Price QC, the head of chambers at 10 Old square. He has considered the Bill, this amendment, and the amendment tabled in Committee, and has said:
Not doing something which statute requires you to do is unlawful.
Clause 1(2) of the new Bill has the effect of excluding liability for any penalty for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars in respect of religion. It does not undo the requirement to provide the particulars. Failure to comply with that requirement is not made lawful; that remains unlawful, and an offence. Only the liability, or the penalty, is excluded. It is an offence not to provide the necessary information; all that has happened is that there is no penalty.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) ably argued that the question should be voluntary. For one reason or another, however, the Government chose to reject what I considered to be a well drafted amendment. We disagree with their decision.
The Minister may say that the question is voluntary. Perhaps removing the penalty gives the impression that it is. However, she will encounter a difficulty, in that the inclusion of a statement on the census paper that the question is voluntary is probably not in her gift, and would mean that she was acting ultra vires. The rejection of the amendment in Committee may well expose the Government to the possibility of a judicial review in the courts.
There will be people out there who, for some reason, will not want the question to be asked. Opinion is far from unanimous; indeed, there is a wide variety of opinion.

Many groups have expressed their support for the question, but some consider it inappropriate, and I think it likely that it will be challenged in the courts.
The Bill amends section 8 of the Census Act 1920. Section 8(1)(d) states that it is an offence attracting a penalty of £10 to refuse to answer a question. The Bill removes that £10 penalty. However, section 8(1)(d) also states that it is an offence for any person to give a false answer to a question. The Bill does not remove the penalty for giving a false answer. If I, a member of the Church of England, write "None" in answer to the question on the paper, under the words "This question is voluntary", I am liable. I am committing an offence, because I have given a false answer to the question.

Mr. John Bercow: I note what my hon. Friend says about the answer "None", but if an individual answered "Not applicable", how would that be interpreted?

Mr. Ottaway: I must answer that on my feet, as it were, but I think that that would constitute a refusal to answer the question, and would therefore not attract a penalty. If, however, a Sikh wrote "Church of England", that would attract a penalty.
This is the difficulty in which the Government fined them. Let us leave aside our argument that the question is not voluntary, although the Minister believes that it is. The fact is that those who answer it inaccurately will incur a penalty. I cannot understand the logic of a Bill that, while purporting to make a question voluntary, imposes a fine for giving an inaccurate answer to that question. Is that really what the Minister intended? I shall be more than happy to give way if she wants to elaborate on that—but it appears that she does not.
That is a legitimate question for me to ask. I hope that the Minister will address it when she responds. Is that what is intended? If it is what is intended, in something important such as a national census, it is opening a can of worms and a Pandora's box of litigation.
5 pm
The Minister may say that I am nit picking, and ask who in their right mind would prosecute someone for putting an inaccurate answer down. Indeed, who would know whether someone had answered inaccurately? That is not the point. What is the point of deeming something an offence if there is unlikely to be a prosecution?
There is a second point. The question again gives strength to someone who seeks to challenge the Bill—or, more to the point, the order—by way of judicial review. I return to the opinion of Mr. Leolin Price QC. In his legal opinion to me, he says:
The Bill in its present form is in my view unconstitutional. Parliament cannot, without flouting constitutional principle, adopt the Bill in its present form.
But if it does, and if the Courts…have to recognise it as an Act of Parliament, that will not be the end of the matter. Apart from any possible effect of the Human Rights Act from October onwards, the draft Census Order, when available (prescribing the Census questions, including the religious questions) will be challengeable by judicial review—preferably by challenge to the decision to prescribe the questions, and preferably before any approving resolution of either House of Parliament.
The amendment is not based on any wish of the Conservative party to be difficult over the matter. We want the law to be put in satisfactory order before we give


it our full support, and eminent banisters did not, in truth, have to spend a significant amount of time researching the background to the amendment, because it was so plainly obvious that the Bill was defective. We cannot say that a question is voluntary if giving an inaccurate answer to it attracts a fine. That is the thrust of the amendment, which I urge the House to support.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I have some sympathy with the amendment. The description that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has given, and the opinion that he has quoted, seem to reveal a fairly fatal flaw in the Bill. What we will have under the proposed statute is an event for which no penalty applies, but which in itself remains unlawful. That does not seem at first sight to be good legislation. I should be grateful if the Minister reassured us that that is not the interpretation that should be made of clause 1(2), because it seems unsatisfactory.
I have two questions for my hon. Friend about the amendment. First, the amendment might in some sense be said to encourage people to give a false answer. I know that that was in the original statute, but I am not so sure that we should write in further encouragement to people to supply false answers with impunity as they move down the census form.
Secondly, I am not wholly persuaded that the amendment cures the flaw at the heart of the Bill. We are dealing with something that remains unlawful by removing only the penalty. The amendment does not seem to tackle that. What we should be doing, surely, is dealing with the unlawful nature of the offence itself.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that amendment No. 1 does not fully cure the Bill's inadequacies. An amendment that I tabled in Committee, which was rejected by the Government, would have made the question genuinely voluntary. Unfortunately, however, hon. Members cannot table the same amendment twice. In amendment No. 1, therefore, we are trying as best we can to highlight the Bill's flaws, while acknowledging that it is the second-best route to remedying weaknesses that will be put on the statute book if the Bill is passed.

Mr. Fallon: The House will be indebted to my hon. Friend not only for the information that he has just supplied but for his efforts to improve the Bill's drafting in Committee. I am only sorry that I myself was not selected to share in that work.
It seems that we are in danger of enacting highly unsatisfactory legislation. Parliament either imposes a requirement or it does not, in which case the matter should be voluntary. I do not know how we can say that although it is unlawful to give false particulars or to answer a question improperly, no penalty can apply to those who do so. I do not see the point of passing such a provision.
My hon. Friends are right to highlight the problem and to tackle it. If amendment No. 1 is the only way of tackling it, so be it, and I shall have to bow to my hon. Friends and to their overqualified legal advisers. However, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—much later this evening,

when he sums up the debate—will tell me how one deals with the point that the proposal may encourage the practice of supplying false information, and whether there is any other way of dealing with the problem that lies at the heart of clause 1.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The census procedure must be accurate, and it must be wrong to provide inaccurate answers to the questions asked. I see no inconsistency in providing for a question that is wholly voluntary, giving the form-filler the option of answering it, and imposing no penalty on those who do not answer it. A person in that category is entirely distinguishable from one who provides bizarre or inaccurate information whose effect would be to defeat the object of the census itself, which is to provide accurate information that can be used for planning and other purposes.
Those who are particularly keen to provide information about their religion have said that they wish to do so, perhaps because they are proud of their religion or faith and wish to make it known. For them, there would seem to be very little purpose in inaccurately filling in the form.

Dr. Evan Harris: Religion is a very personal matter, and it is quite possible for people to be unsure whether they are one thing or the other. Some people may be in the midst of a conversion, for example, perhaps thinking that they are religious when they are not. Such people may be worried about providing inaccurate information, particularly if the information that they provide is to be checked. I think that that issue goes to the heart of the problems with the Bill.

Mr. Foster: I am not entirely sure that most people are confused about their religious convictions. However, even if they were, the census is only a snapshot, recording the particular religion that people profess when completing the form. I believe that no one is likely to be prosecuted if he or she has a change of view after completing the form.

Mr. Bercow: I listened intently and with interest to the intervention of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). In relation to the scenario that he described, in reflecting on the percentage of those who may fall into that category, may I ask the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) how many noughts he thinks there would be after the decimal point before a figure appeared?

Mr. Foster: I suspect that the percentage would be very small indeed, and that very few people change their religion. Although I do not think that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was asking an irrelevant question, I think that the number of such people would not be important statistically. What is important is that the information given is accurate to the best of the form-filler's ability. I believe that the Bill provides for that, and I believe that it will happen. What is most important is accuracy, and the Government's ability to analyse the information.

Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman has laid great stress on the need for accurate responses. The Government spokesman in the Lords pointed out that if the question


were voluntary, the information collected, not only on that question but on others, would be rendered valueless. He said:
it has been shown that making a question voluntary seriously affects the response not only to the question itself where response bias could devalue the information obtained, but also as regards other questions because people are confused about some questions being voluntary and others being compulsory.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1717.]
Is not the hon. Gentleman's point eroding the Government's idea of a part voluntary, part compulsory census?

Mr. Foster: I do not believe that that is so. All that the proposal will do is affect the sample. Obviously, the larger the sample, the more accurate the outcome. The only thing that will have an effect on its level of inaccuracy is people giving inaccurate responses. As in any opinion poll or survey there is wide variance, and the more people complete it, the more accurate it is. If fewer people choose not to complete the census because of its voluntary nature, it will not be as accurate.
My perception is that those to whom, owing to religious conviction, the matter is important will complete the form. Indeed, religious faiths are keen for their followers to be able to do so. For those reasons, although it is right that there should be the opportunity to say no to the question, it is also right that the people who are asked a question should answer truthfully.

Mr. Eric Forth: This is all becoming ludicrously confusing. What started as a fairly straightforward, if unacceptable, proposition that the state should pry into some of the most private aspects of people's lives through the vehicle of the census—I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not want us to debate that at this stage, although I hope that we shall have an opportunity to do so at some length on Third Reading—has become a matter of important detail.
Even from the speeches so far, it has become obvious—I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee—that this is a very confused and muddled little Bill. Not only is it unacceptable in principle, it is becoming unworkable in practice. In other words, it is the ideal Bill for this Government to try to slip through the House as quietly and surreptitiously as possible. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not have quiet and surreptitious Bills at this stage of the Session, as all Bills receive equal and proper scrutiny.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman speculate on how the Government might want to check the accuracy of answers that people give to the question?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted something that I wanted to come to later. He will not want to deflect me from my introductory remarks—will he? He will recognise that we are at the throat-clearing stage, and that we shall come to the substance in due course. I am sure that, with his generosity of spirit, he would not want to hurry me through that process.
These are important matters and no one should be under any illusion that there is any levity in our approach to dealing with them. They touch on some of the most important aspects of the relationship between the

Government and the authorities on the one hand, and the Government and the citizen on the other. Although the Government seem to treat such matters with the greatest levity, I hope that we on the Opposition Benches will never do so. In that I include Liberal Democrat Members, who I know take these issues seriously, as we have seen in the context of other legislation.
A series of questions must be addressed. I shall not dwell on the question of principle; that is a Third Reading matter. We are faced, under the amendment, with the question of practicability. What on earth will be the value of a census if it is to result from questions that are either voluntary, and therefore variable in the response that they elicit, and/or false—the matter of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)?
I should have thought that, up to now, the general assumption has been that the value of conducting a census is that the authorities gain proper knowledge of matters that are relevant to policy making, which allows them more effectively to discharge the responsibilities and duties of Government. I would question whether religion is one of those matters, but that is a subject to which I shall return later.

Dr. Harris: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are many things one can learn about people that will make the job of Government easier. How people vote would be an extremely useful thing for Governments to know, but putting such a question on a form, even if answering it were voluntary, and saying that people will have committed an offence if the question is answered inaccurately, would make us pause for serious thought. Those who oppose the amendment have to answer the question: where will it all end?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing up that theme—I might want to pick it up later, albeit not in the current debate—because it does indeed give rise to serious thoughts. If we can start by probing people's religious beliefs, where will we finish? However, as I said, that is a matter for another debate, probably on Third Reading.

Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend should not be surprised—the current Government might well want to count up the number of people who have lost faith.

Mr. Forth: I suspect that they would not want to count the membership of a group that is growing so alarmingly, as other sources of information have told us.
We must directly face the question of the extent to which the answering of the questions is voluntary, rather than compulsory, and hence what value can be placed on those answers. We must also examine the dimension embodied in the amendment, which is the result of people giving false information in reply to the question. Even having heard the eloquent introduction provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, I am torn about how to vote on the amendment. I can perceive its attraction, but I am bothered by the perversity of not having a penalty for providing false information in the context of something as important as the census. We shall have to think our way through the problem, and I shall


probably do my thinking aloud, as is my custom; not only will doing so help me, but it might help other hon. Members.
My difficulty arises from the fact that, even if we do not dwell excessively on the extent to which reliable information is required in a census, which is linked to the question of whether or not answering the question is compulsory and penalties are attached, a new dimension altogether is brought to the fore when we consider the possibility of false information being provided. If people are going to be given the idea that they need not bother to answer the question, we have to judge the probability of a large number of people exercising their option not to answer the question and thereby entirely invalidating the data it provides.
In addition, the problem of differing answers has bothered me right from the start. I have heard it suggested that certain religious faiths are keen on the question being included. The implication of that is there is confidence that people of some faiths will be more eager to answer the question than those of other faiths. If answering the question is voluntary, not compulsory, that differential effect is likely to be exaggerated and will threaten to undermine the validity of the census itself.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his argument in respect of such practices applies to differential weighting not only between people of different religious faiths, but between people of religious faith and those of no religious faith?

Mr. Forth: I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend's question, because I think that the matter is one for Third Reading. However, it is an issue to which I shall return, because we have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation of what the Government think will be the effects on their policy determination of the answers that they believe will flow from the exercise. To be blunt—I do not want to be delayed on this point now—what policies will be directed at people who have no religious faith as a result of the exercise? I shall return to that question. I flag it up and move on rapidly.

Mr. Steve Webb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to lead me astray.

Mr. Webb: I would not dream of it.
The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the quality of the data collected from the question that can be answered voluntarily, and how that might be biased. It is well known that poor data collected from any scientific survey are worse than none at all. Biased data are positively misleading. It might be better not to have such data and not to make policy on that basis than to proceed on the basis of biased and loaded answers that will be obtained in the way the right hon. Gentleman has outlined.

Mr. Forth: That must be the danger. I hope that the Minister will spend a little time to see whether she can

satisfy the doubts in the hon. Gentleman's mind and in mine about the multilayering of inaccuracy that is starting to enter the process.
First, we have the doubts about the voluntary nature of the question and the differential effect that we are suggesting that that might have. Those doubts are increased by the question raised by the amendment; that is, that we might have people who, for whatever reason, start to give false information. We have people who will not bother to answer, because we are told that the process is voluntary. We have people who will answer correctly because they want to have a differential effect on the policy outcome of their answer. A third category has entered the equation—people who for reasons I cannot quite guess at now might want to give false information on the form for a different effect altogether.
The question that the amendment raises is whether we believe that the provision of false information will be sufficiently serious that it should warrant a penalty, or whether the provision of false information should be penalty free. This is where I find myself in a dilemma. I do not criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South for raising the question by means of the amendment, but I am left in a difficulty. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me. Does she judge that false information should be penalty free in this context? Perhaps she will say that, as the exercise is flawed anyway, some false information will not make very much difference.
If we have people withholding information by not answering the question, the Minister may ask, "What difference would positively false information make?" We are now beginning to see a subtle distinction appearing between non-information and completely false information. We are being told, apparently, that this will be penalty free. Surely it is a challenge to the concept of this part of the census, if not the census as a whole, if we are not careful. There is a real question about what is claimed to be the beneficial outcome of the exercise. That is, the extent to which the answering of the question is now voluntary, not compulsory, and the extent to which there will be no penalty attached either to the withholding of information or the provision of false information.
We must ask whether the exercise can be worth implementing. That may be the position only if the Minister will come clean and tell us—in more detail than hitherto—what she claims to be the beneficial policy outcome of the exercise. It has a flimsy basis because a multiplicity of weaknesses is appearing in the process. What is alleged to be the beneficial outcome of what is being proposed?

Mr. Bercow: I agree that it is difficult to fathom why individuals should want to vouchsafe false information. However, does my right hon. Friend agree with me—I think that it is relevant in terms of the purport of the amendment—that personal advantage is unlikely to be a motivating factor, given the many people who are expected to respond to the census and among whom any increased resources would over a period be spread?

Mr. Forth: I am not sure whether that is so. There may be no individual personal advantage to be gained, but there could be group or community advantage. That is one of the more worrying aspects of the measure. We must


try to flush out from the Government whether it is conceivable that a group of people could seek not only to identify themselves through the process, but to magnify—perhaps it would be more accurate to say maximise—their numbers in order to gain the policy advantages that we must assume underlie the entire exercise.
It worries me considerably how many people will claim to be Church of England because they think that Church of England adherents will benefit in some way from the exercise. I doubt very much whether that is the case, but perhaps the Minister will tell us otherwise. Going back to the question raised earlier, people with no religion or no religious belief, or who belong to no organised Church or faith, are most unlikely to gain any advantage from the exercise, so why should they give the answer?
It may be important for other reasons, which I cannot immediately think of, that we should know how many people in the totality of our society are adherents of one or other faith, Christian or otherwise, and how many people describe themselves as atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular or any number of other labels.
What would be the result? Is the question mere flim-flam? Is it all just for amusement? Is it purposeless, or is there some underlying reason that we have not yet been told?

Mr. Fallon: Is it not more likely that those seeking to maximise their numbers may be the smaller religions that sought to pass some threshold requirement for a particular policy or for a programme of national expenditure?

Mr. Forth: That disturbing possibility exists, and it brings me to my next point. How on earth will the accuracy of the information be verified or verifiable, making it useful as data? One can self-evidently verify whether someone has answered a question. The response is either there on the form or it is not. However, when we come to my hon. Friend's amendment and his introduction of the concept of false information, matters become much more complicated.
This may be a point that I should address to my hon. Friend rather than to the Minister, but I cannot imagine for the life of me what mechanism is likely to exist for the authorities to establish whether the information given on the census form in reply to the question on religion is accurate and correct, or whether it is misleading. If a Christian claims to be a Muslim, or a Jew claims to be an atheist, how on earth will we know? If we cannot know, that must call into question the extent to which my hon. Friend's amendment is meaningful. In that context, what is a false answer? Only the respondent can possibly know, in a matter of such intimacy as personal faith, whether the reply is accurate or not.
What at first blush appears to be simple and straightforward quickly tends to become complex and difficult to fathom.

Dr. Harris: In case hon. Members consider the case to be purely theoretical, may I give a personal example? I was born Jewish, of a Jewish mother, and there are many people born of Jewish fathers who may be considered Jewish or may consider themselves Jewish. I consider myself Jewish culturally, but I do not have religious belief. I would be worried, as would others,

about giving an inaccurate answer whichever way I filled in the form, especially if an inaccurate answer would leave me liable to some sort of penalty.

Mr. Forth: That, of course, is true. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help us as she takes us through the process—in some detail, I hope—and tells us how she envisages the mechanism will work, how the policing or verification of it will be carried out and how, in the absence of penalties, any of it will be at all meaningful.
The question from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) raises another, perhaps unlikely, possibility—that some people may be persuaded to provide false information on the forms that would artificially boost the number of members that a faith appeared to have. I am not certain about the mechanism involved, but the motivation is clear enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) mentioned thresholds, and I hope that the Minister will say whether any such concept is involved in this matter. What are the policy implications? What number of adherents to a particular faith would be likely to spark a policy response?

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made a good and challenging point. I do not want to be too introspective, but I too am Jewish, although my parentage is different from that of the hon. Gentleman. I identify passionately with the Jewish people and the state of Israel, but I confess that these days I go to synagogue only for funerals.

Mr. Forth: I hope that this does not get out of hand, but the Jewish faith is losing adherents at an alarming rate even in this brief debate. Perhaps I should sit down before the process goes much further.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon should be noted, however. From the start, I have considered the measure dubious and rather offensive. I think that I know why the Government wants to introduce it, but I hope that the Minister will give the House the reason yet again. I hope too that she will tell us what will be the outcome in policy terms, and that she will give more detail about the mechanism by which the question will be posed, and answered without penalty.
How reliable does the Minister expect the information to be that will emerge from the penalty-free process? The amendment introduces for the first time the alarming prospect that the forms could be falsified for purposes that might be sinister. What is the link between the information that will be gained and policy formation? What might be the potential flow of resources into different communities, sects, cults or other groups?
A lot of important policy issues hang on this apparently straightforward amendment. I hope that we can go into more detail on Third Reading about the principle behind the Bill. I have not made my mind up about the amendment. I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, and will do so again if he succeeds in catching your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly want to listen to what the Minister has to say. I hope that she will be on good form.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Yet again, I follow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst


(Mr. Forth). It is becoming a habit. Last Friday, the right hon. Gentleman blocked the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill. He was within his rights to do so, but the Bill was extremely important to the Jewish community in my constituency. This Bill is important to them also, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not repeat his efforts to delay or block this Bill. That would inflict a double whammy on the Jewish community throughout the country.
I can only assume that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has not bothered to read the guidance notes to the Bill, which set out clearly how the matter can be resolved. They make it clear that people will not have to give information if they do not want to, and that an atheist can answer the question under discussion with the word "none".
Finally, the guidance notes state that people who belong to a religion that is not specified on the form can write the name of that religion in the space provided when they answer the question. For example, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) could take that opportunity to write his little essay about how he used to be an adherent of the Jewish faith but is no longer. People can use the space available to write what they like, and thus make the position clear.

Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dismore: No. I do not want to block the Bill. I want to make progress.
We are seeing a mountain being made out of a molehill. There are plenty of options for people who do not want to say what their religion is, or for those whose position is rather more complicated, because they can write in the box.

Mr. Ottaway: rose—

Mr. Dismore: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to people wanting to boost the Church of England somehow. They could either put "Church of England" or tick the Christian box, which embraces all the various denominations of the Christian Church.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dismore: No, I will not give way.
We are seeing an attempt by the Conservative party, yet again, to block a Bill that is of fundamental importance to many people in this country, particularly the Jewish constituents whom I represent. I hope that Conservative Members will stop this nonsense and let the Bill go through so that we can make some progress. Let us not repeat what happened last Friday.

Mr. Tyrie: I shall have to begin my speech by addressing some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). [Interruption.] The Government Whip has suggested, from a sedentary position, that I stick to the amendment, which the hon. Member for Hendon was certainly not doing.
The hon. Gentleman made a series of points describing a Bill that we are content to support—at least I would be—in the Lobby. The problem is, that is not the Bill before us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the House. I allowed the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) considerable leeway in putting his arguments, many of which appeared to me to be more appropriate to a Third Reading debate than to this amendment. I fear that other right hon. and hon. Members may have been led astray by the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he would not want that to happen, and I certainly do not.

Mr. Tyrie: I just wanted to clarify that I shall not be dealing with the principle of a voluntary Bill which, as I said, I would be prepared to support, or the usefulness of the information when it has been collected, although I have my doubts about that. Nor shall I be discussing the cost-effectiveness of the measure, even though there are good arguments that survey data might provide such information more effectively and cheaply.
I shall, however, report on where we are—this is, after all, the Report stage of the Bill. I have to report that the Bill is in a mess. It is a bad piece of draft legislation, and I want to explain briefly how we have arrived at this point. Only by doing so will I be able to explain why the amendment in my name has been tabled.
The measure was introduced in the House of Lords. Their lordships thought that religion was a private matter and that answering the question should be voluntary. They therefore removed the financial penalty. On Second Reading, I asked how people would know, when they filled in the form, whether answering the question was voluntary. In Committee, the Minister gave me the answer. She assured me that the question that was proposed would be dealt with through the regulations, and said that the wording would be "What is your religion?" She went on:
Underneath the question will appear the statement "This question is voluntary".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 July 2000; c. 13.]
I pointed out, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), that that would conflict with the long title of the Bill, which makes it clear that the Bill amends the Census Act 1920 to enable particulars to be required—not requested—in respect of religion. Therefore, there is a clear conflict between the Minister's desire to add the word voluntary to the census form and the long title of the Bill which makes it clear that completing the form is a requirement.
When I raised that point in Committee, the Minister said not to worry, and that
these matters have been checked.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 July 2000; c. 16.]
I assume that legal advice was taken on this point. However, I have taken the trouble to obtain some legal advice of my own in the meantime. The legal opinions that I have received on this issue are clear. I should like to read out a small part of the legal opinion that I received


from the Vice-Chancellor of London university, Professor Graham Zellick, which I shall make available to the Minister after the debate. He says:
It would not be lawful to state on the form that the question was voluntary as the Minister proposes (in Standing Committee). As there is no power under the Act, as amended by the Bill in its present form, to include voluntary questions, to provide for such a statement in regulations would be ultra vires, the statement itself on the form would be unlawful and both would therefore be open to challenge by way of judicial review.
I received a similar response from the National Secular Society. It said:
Were the Government to persist in describing the questions as voluntary, which we are confident would be ultra vires, it would be laying itself open to an adverse judicial review decision at any time before the census.
That is how the Bill now stands, given that the Government rejected the amendment that I tabled in Committee and without the amendment.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who said that the amendment would only partly address the Bill's defectiveness. Therefore, it could be described as a probing amendment, but it is the only means whereby we can draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Government wants to put a bad law on to the statute book. I make it absolutely clear that I cannot support the Bill in its current form.
The Government wants to put shoddy legislation on to the statute book. Eminent lawyers agree that the Government's action would be unlawful if they were to describe the question on religion on the census form as "voluntary". The same eminent lawyers have told us that the Bill would be subject to judicial review and, therefore, that anyone or any pressure group could wreck the census by going to judicial review.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray into arguments that he might wish to put on Third Reading if he were to catch the eye of the Chair. He must speak to the amendment, to which I thought he had finally returned a moment ago.

Mr. Tyrie: The amendment is intended to show the weakness of the Bill. I shall draw my remarks to a close by saying that it seems incomprehensible to me that the Government are not prepared either to accept the amendment or to table an alternative. The only reason that I can provide as to why they are not prepared to do so is that they have a huge legislative logjam in the Lords. If the amendment were accepted, the Bill would have to return to the Lords and that logjam would become significantly worse.
I am not prepared to vote for a Bill that is fundamentally defective just to help the Government out of the logjam in their legislative programme. That is not the way to run a country. I will not dispute the principle of whether the question should be added to the census form—the Bill has had its Second Reading—but I cannot understand how any reasonable person can expect independent-minded Members of Parliament to put such poor legislation on to the statute book.

Dr. Harris: I associate myself with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), although I would have made similar points on Third Reading if I had caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also associate

myself with the dilemma faced by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) because the amendment is difficult to support if one believes that accurate information should be given in censuses. However, the Bill is so flawed that I am minded to support it at the moment because it removes what would be a great injustice.
I did not intend to speak to the amendment, but I should tell the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that someone with his constituency should be more careful before traducing another hon. Member's private religious or cultural opinions; doing so by name, and then refusing to take an intervention that would have put the matter right. The trivial way in which he dealt with my dilemma about the difference between cultural and religious Judaism was insulting. His refusal to allow me to ask him to reconsider by taking an intervention during his rambling rant was even more unfortunate. When he reads the record tomorrow, I hope that he will reflect on what he has said.
5.45 pm
People feel strongly about religion and cultural matters. That is one reason why the promoters of the Bill want it to be enacted. The amendment displays the heart of the problem in the Bill, however, in that it is neither one thing nor the other.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I have enjoyed some of the tortuous argument that I have heard so far. The purpose of the Bill is actually simple and clear. It seeks only to change the Census Act 1920 to permit a voluntary question on religion to be included in the census of England and Wales. Subject to secondary legislation, that question could be included in the next census in 2001. That would bring census legislation in England and Wales in line with that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, where legislation already permits a voluntary question on religion.

Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that anything is desirable simply because it happens in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Surely the point of devolution—and of English devolution, should we ever have it—is that if we think that something in Scotland and Northern Ireland is daft, we will not do it.

Mr. Sayeed: I quite agree. I am not suggesting that we should have this provision in England and Wales simply because it exists in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I would point out, however, that this has been the law in Northern Ireland since 1969, and it has worked very well.
Before I discuss the amendment, I should like to make one point. I am indebted to the Minister and the Government for providing the parliamentary time necessary to enact—I hope—the Bill. Without that, it clearly would not have progressed.
Clause 1 makes it clear that particulars in respect of religion may be included in a census without any liability to penalty for anyone who refuses or neglects to state them. That is clear. The question on religion is in effect voluntary, subject to an Order in Council providing for such particulars to be stated in the census return and to subsequent regulations setting out the wording. That is where the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was


wrong: the precise wording is not in the Bill, but will be given in later regulations, probably subject to the negative procedure.
In response to requests by me and other hon. Members, the Minister gave clear assurances in Committee that the wording of the census question on religion would make it clear to the person completing the form—the most important person—that the question was voluntary. The wording will be set out in the regulations that will be laid before the House once the Order in Council has been made.
The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) aims to remove the penalty for giving deliberately false answers to the question on religion. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) that that is neither necessary nor desirable.
Clearly, removing the penalty for anyone who fails to provide the particulars with respect to religion, makes any question on religion in the census voluntary. Only the criminal sanction in section 8 of the 1920 Act makes the census compulsory in the first place. However one wraps it up, removal of the sanction makes the response to the question on religion voluntary. As the Bill stands, therefore, an individual may decide to answer the question on the form or may freely decide not to do so, without any fear of a penalty. It is entirely up to the individual.
However, it is reasonable to expect that anyone who freely chooses to answer the question should do so accurately. False information is worse than no information. I remind the House that the person who fills in the form is required to sign a declaration that it has been completed to the best of his or her knowledge and belief.

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend is enlightening the House as to the reasoning behind the clause. Is he saying, therefore, that to supply inaccurate information when answering the question is still unlawful?

Mr. Sayeed: I am saying what it says on the form—on past and, I presume, future forms. The form must be completed to the best of a person's knowledge and belief. A person may make a genuine mistake, but it would be foolish and unnecessary deliberately to permit falsified information.

Mr. Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend explain how one could make a mistake about one's religion?

Mr. Sayeed: I think that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) demonstrated how a person might be confused. I cannot say whether he would be confused when completing the form.
There is a sanction against supplying false information. It would run completely counter to the ethos and purpose of the census if we suggested in any way that it was permissible to give inaccurate information deliberately.

Mr. Fallon: Therefore, it is my hon. Friend's proposition that giving any inaccurate information deliberately must remain unlawful.

Mr. Sayeed: The simple answer is yes.

Dr. Harris: It is important that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is a difference between being

confused and being in a dilemma. I am not confused about either my cultural background, my birth background or my religious beliefs. It is merely that, because of my birth I was considered Jewish by my school and offered exemption from Christian religious education, but if I were asked whether I was a Jew by religion and followed those tenets, the answer would be no. Either way, knowing exactly what I am doing and making a conscious decision, I am liable to give the wrong information. It depends on the basis of the question—whether it refers to my birth religion or my religious faith.

Mr. Sayeed: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has it wrong. All that he has to do is not answer that question, which the Bill at present permits.

Mr. Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair.

Mr. Tyrie: If the person completing the form has a strong religious belief but leaves the answer to that question blank, would that be unlawful?

Mr. Sayeed: No. The Bill specifically permits someone not to complete that part of the form.
The amendment is not necessary. A person's freedom of choice about whether to answer the question on religion is established under the Bill as it stands. The amendment would not enhance that right in any way.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he expects the Government to check whether people have filled in the form honestly and accurately? Is he expecting a Government agency to ask people their religion anonymously, face to face?

Mr. Sayeed: I was about to deal with some of the other comments made on Report. My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) have disputed the use of "require" and prefer "request". The demand is not new; it was made in Committee. Professor Zellick expressed a similar view.
Professor Zellick is well known as someone who is strongly against the Bill. In a letter in the Jewish Chronicle of 16 July 1999—when the question was mandatory—the professor said:
The Institute for Jewish Policy Research, in a recent paper on the issue, recommends that Britain should adopt the practice, as in the few other countries where such a question is asked, of making it voluntary. That would certainly remove the main objection to the Bill.

Mr. Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sayeed: No, I will make a little progress first, but then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South suggested that the use of the word "required" in the title of the Bill, in section 8(1)(d) of the 1920 Act and the schedule to it implies the notion of compulsion. Thus, while the Bill provides for the lifting of the financial penalty for non-compliance under section 8(1) of the 1920 Act, it does not make the question voluntary. In other


words, it would still be a legal duty to furnish the particulars, but it would not be a criminal offence to neglect or refuse to do so. I trust that that is an accurate reflection of his argument.
I too have discussed the matter with those who understand the legal arguments. I understand that the position of the Treasury solicitors is that the use of the word "required" in this context does not imply a statutory duty—[Interruption.] may I explain why—any more than the use of the word in the question, "What size of shoe do you require?" implies anything more than a request.

Mr. Tyrie: Does that not mean, therefore, that the 1920 Act was voluntary because that was the word used in the long title to require people to fill in census forms?

Mr. Sayeed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question because I was about to deal with it. The use of the word "required" in the schedule to the 1920 Act makes the census compulsory. It is the removal of that sanction specifically in respect of religion that makes the question voluntary.

Mr. Edward Davey: I think that the House is perturbed by what the hon. Gentleman said about the advice of the Treasury. Subsections 3(b)(c)(d) and (e) of the Census Act 1920 use the word "requiring". Indeed, that is the way that people are required to give information. Therefore, the advice from the Treasury would seem completely to go against what is in the Act.

6 pm

Mr. Sayeed: As I have already said, the use of the word "required" relates to the schedule of the 1920 Act. It is not relevant to the Act's provisions because it removes the penalty.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sayeed: No, I want to make progress.
I was a little surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South say that the Economic Secretary was acting beyond her competence in giving certain assurances to the Committee. I believe that a Minister who gives assurances to the House or a Committee acts in good faith, and I expect a Minister who gives such assurances to follow those assurances through. Certainly, given the size of the Government's majority, there is little doubt that they can effect most legislative changes that they wish to make. The Economic Secretary's assurances were that, subject to the Bill becoming law and subject to an amending Order in Council, the 2001 census form would include a clear note setting out the voluntary nature of the question about religion. An Economic Secretary has the authority to give those assurances, as he or she—in this case she—is responsible on behalf of the Chancellor for making the appropriate regulations that would provide for the wording of the revised census form. I cannot see that the Economic Secretary is acting ultra vires, as was suggested.
Finally, I come to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I always enjoy listening to him as he is an extremely polished speaker. However, he sometimes reminds me of

the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—against whom I stood in an election way back in 1983—as he always sounds so very plausible until one starts to analyse exactly what he says. My right hon. Friend started by asking whether we might get inaccurate figures, and then went on to state that we were likely to get inaccurate figures. He ended by asserting that the figures will definitely be inaccurate. As I said, my right hon. Friend reminds me of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield because what is a possibility at the beginning of a speech is a certainty by the end. I have asked about the reliability of figures coming from a voluntary question, and was told that census officials expect that introducing such a question on a voluntary basis may affect the level of response to a certain degree, but that evidence suggests that that would not be to an extent that would compromise the integrity and value of the information obtained. I believe that that answers the points raised by my right hon. Friend.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I have seldom listened to a debate in which so much of what several contributors said amounted to so little. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) that something that may perhaps happen rapidly can become a flood of something that definitely will happen. That is exactly what we have witnessed this afternoon in several Members' discussions of the amendment.
I shall try to confine myself to the amendment. When the Bill becomes law, and subsequent to Parliament approving a draft order adding religion to other particulars already approved for inclusion in the 2001 census, the Government will make regulations under section 3(1) of the Census Act 1920, amending the provisions that came into force on 27 June, which set out the census forms to be used in England and Wales, including the question on religion and the statement that that question is voluntary.
It has been suggested that there would be no power under the 1920 Act, even if it was amended by the Bill, to include a voluntary question in the census, and that to provide for such a statement in the regulations would be ultra vires. I can assure the House that the legal opinion that my officials have taken on this matter confirms the view of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire that the removal of the penalty for anyone failing to provide particulars on religion makes the census question on religion voluntary, as only the criminal sanction in section 8 of the 1920 Act makes it statutory to comply with the census in the first place. Removal of the sanction in relation to religion can only have the effect of making the response to that question voluntary.
If the optimum value is to be obtained from the considerable investment in the census, it is important that the response to each question should yield the most accurate information possible. Several Opposition Members are concerned about that.

Mr. Edward Davey: Before the Minister addresses that point, will she confirm that the statutory cover for making regulations to enable the words, "This question is voluntary" to be added after the question, "What is your religion?" comes under section 3(1)(f) of the 1920 Act, which gives the Minister powers to make regulations
with respect to the forms to be used in the taking of a census.


Are those the correct legal powers that the Minister will use to make those regulations? This important point was raised earlier by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).

Miss Johnson: I do not have the reference to that specific part of the Act before me at the moment. However, I shall go on to deal with some important issues.
It is important that people are clear that two matters are involved. The form is required to have the question, but the question is voluntary. For the most part, Opposition Members have failed to grasp that distinction.

Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to the Minister for helping to clarify that.
Does the obligation on a citizen to provide accurate information, with the possibility that a penalty may otherwise be imposed, still apply to section 8 of the 1920 Act?

Miss Johnson: As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said a few minutes ago, people will sign at the bottom of the form to say that the information that they supplied—which, obviously, they do not have to supply, as the question is voluntary—is accurate, whatever formula is used on the form. One has to sign for the veracity of the information on the form.
There is a failure to understand what is going on.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Johnson: No, I should like to make this point, which Opposition Members need to hear. Before I do so, however, may I confirm that the power to which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred comes under section 3(1)(f) of the 1920 Act, which states that regulations may be made
with respect to the forms to be used in the taking of a census.
May I explain the nature of what goes on the form? Obviously, the census forms will be different in different parts of the country. Various geographic variations are accounted for by the fact that the particulars that are to be stated in the returns are recorded in the regulations, rather than the Bill or the Act. Several particulars relating to other matters in the census already have to be stated under the census order made on 15 March this year. Typically, differences between Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are demonstrated in various aspects of the form. It is under that provision that the exception will be made to make the religion question voluntary in the Bill. In that way, this can be a voluntary question that sits outside the requirement for the form to contain the question. I hope that I have made that completely clear, because Opposition Members have had difficulty in getting to grips with the notion over a considerable time. It is, however, fairly straightforward.
Form fillers are not only under a general statutory requirement to complete the form, but are expected not to provide false answers to questions—that is, they should not deliberately attempt to degrade the value of the census by supplying information which they know to be untrue. Indeed, they are required to sign a declaration. No one

will question the sense of including that in order to ensure that responses to any other questions to be included in the census form are accurate.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was right to say that there would be no sense in including a question on religion, even on a voluntary basis, if no similar sanction was available for those who gave false information in answer to that question. Therefore, if a person freely chooses to answer the religion question in the 2001 census, it is important that the information should be accurate, even if the person says that he or she has no religion. It would be poor practice, legally and statistically, to work within a legislative framework that went out of its way to provide a loophole for the deliberate provision of false information, and I am sure that the House would not expect me to argue the case for that.

Dr. Harris: There are people in this country whose mother is Jewish as a result of having converted under a reformed or liberal rabbinate in this country or the United States. For religious political reasons, they consider themselves Jewish, but are not considered Jewish by the orthodoxy. The orthodoxy is the main Jewish religion here, and people are simply not considered to be Jewish if they are descended from a woman who was not converted by the orthodoxy. Some of those people will want to state that they are Jewish, but will know that, in the strict sense, that is false. They will therefore be subject to sanction, because the penalty for knowingly giving inaccurate information applies in this case. What does the Minister have to say to those people, of whom there are plenty?

Miss Johnson: People will give information that accords with the best of their knowledge and belief. That is a matter for them.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): It is common sense.

Miss Johnson: Too right; it is common sense. It would be difficult, if not impossible in many cases, to ascertain whether someone had provided false information. Responses are subjective and it is for the form filler, and possibly his or her deity or god, to know whether the answer to a particular question is true. I am not sure whether census officials intend to scrutinise forms to see whether responses are likely to be false. There could be no easy way of checking. The evidence from a quality check of answers to census questions, which was undertaken as part of the census rehearsal in 1999, indicates that few, if any, deliberate attempts were made to answer questions falsely. People genuinely try to complete census forms; they understand where the information goes and the purpose for which it is used. They also understand that it is confidential for 100 years. That means that the vast majority do their best to answer the questions honestly.
In the interests of maintaining statistical credibility for the whole census, it is important that the responses to all questions should have the same statutory sanction: that they should be as true, or as accurate, as possible. Making the answering of a question voluntary does not change that.
6.15 pm
It may be worth dealing with the statistical validity of information. It is nonsense to say that the data will be tainted, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested. The most recent experience in Northern Ireland, where a question is traditionally included in the census—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) would do well to listen, as this is his amendment. I was telling him about arrangements that exactly parallel those that we are making. In Northern Ireland, where a question is traditionally included on a similarly voluntary basis, only some 7.3 per cent. did not respond. In the view of the Office for National Statistics, with that level of response, the data would still be very useful for the purposes for which they are required. I made a similar point on Second Reading or in Committee.
I am advised that removing the penalty for anyone failing to provide particulars with respect to the religion question effectively makes the question on religion voluntary. I am further advised that the power to make those regulations enables the religion question to be described in the census form as voluntary. The long title of the Bill refers to the amendment to
the Census Act 1920 to enable particulars to be required.
The word "required" is used because of a reference in the schedule to the Act. The effect of the Bill is to remove explicitly the penalty for failing to provide particulars on religion. That is what makes it a voluntary question.
Opposition Members seemed to assume that the religion question was not voluntary, and a number of the difficulties that they raised were entirely apposite. I join my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), in wondering why yet another Bill is being blocked or questioned in this way by some Opposition Members.

Mr. Forth: It is called scrutiny.

Miss Johnson: Yes, scrutiny is a very good thing and I am all in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman claims that the Bill is about boosting the numbers in certain faiths. We have been lobbied widely by religious groups of all faiths around the country, including the Christian faith and the Church of England, to ensure that we provide for such a question in the Bill.
The amendment is unnecessary. The question is voluntary and the dangers that Opposition Members foresee do not exist. I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Ottaway: The argument was encapsulated by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) when he said that the Opposition were making a mountain out of a molehill. To one extent, he is right. If, as a member of the Church of England, I put the word "none" on my census form, does it make a difference? The point that the hon. Gentleman misses is that when the census order is challenged in the courts under the judicial review procedures, that will be a very serious mountain. It is a case not of what individuals do and say, but of whether the census takes place next April. We suggest that it will not, because the matter will go to court.
What is absolutely ludicrous is that one simple amendment, which was moved in Committee and has been moved again today, would remove all possible

doubt. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr.Forth) said that he needed to be persuaded and wanted to make up his mind. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) was also concerned and wanted to be persuaded. I hope that he will join us in the Lobby. The reason for that was encapsulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who has taken a fair amount of flak on this matter, but he is doing a noble job. He was asked whether, if the question was not answered, that would be lawful, to which he replied that it would be lawful, but that a false answer would be unlawful.
The situation was summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). When I said that if I put down the word "none" that would be to give a false answer which would attract a penalty, he asked what would happen if "not applicable" was put down, to which the answer was that if one is refusing to answer, that will not attract a penalty. Therefore, if a member of the Church of England writes "none" on the form, that will attract a fine, whereas if "not applicable" is written, that will not attract a fine.
I hope that I have persuaded the House that the measure is, in truth, a mess. It is a dog's dinner. It will end up in the courts and the Conservative party will have nothing to do with it. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 331.

Division No. 293]
[6.20 Pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Allan, Richard
Collins, Tim


Amess, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cotter, Brian


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cran, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Ballard, Jackie
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Beggs, Roy
Day, Stephen


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bercow, John
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan Smith, Iain


Blunt, Crispin
Evans, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Brady, Graham
Fearn, Ronnie


Brake, Tom
Flight, Howard


Brand, Dr Peter
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brazier, Julian
Foster, Don (Bath)


Breed, Colin
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fraser, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Garnier, Edward


Burnett, John
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burstow, Paul
Gibb, Nick


Butterfill, John
Gidley, Sandra


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gill, Christopher



Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Cash, William
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gorrie, Donald



Gray, James


Chope, Christopher
Green, Damian


Clappison, James
Greenway, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Grieve, Dominic






Gummer, Rt Hon John
Paice, James


Hague, Rt Hon William
Paterson, Owen


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Pickles, Eric


Hammond, Philip
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hancock, Mike
Prior, David


Harris, Dr Evan
Randall, John


Harvey, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nick
Rendel, David


Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Robertson, Laurence


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Horam, John
Ruffley, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
St Aubyn, Nick


Hunter, Andrew
Sanders, Adrian


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Soames, Nicholas



Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Spring, Richard


Keetch, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Streeter, Gary



Stunell, Andrew


Key, Robert
Swayne, Desmond


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Syms, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Letwin, Oliver
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Thompson, William


Lidington, David
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Townend, John


Livsey, Richard
Trend, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tyler, Paul


Loughton, Tim
Tyrie, Andrew


Luff, Peter
Viggers, Peter



Walter, Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Webb, Steve


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Whittingdale, John


MaLouglin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Madel, Sir David
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Malins, Humfrey
Wilkinson, John


Maples, John
Willetts, David


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Willis, Phil


May, Mrs Theresa
Wilshire, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Moore, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Nicholls, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Norman, Archie
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Oaten, Mark



Öpik, Lembit
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Page, Richard
Mrs. Eleanor Laing.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bayley, Hugh


Ainger, Nick
Beard, Nigel


Alexander, Douglas
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Allen, Graham
Begg, Miss Anne


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew F


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bermingham, Gerald


Atkins, Charlotte
Berry, Roger


Austin, John
Best, Harold


Banks, Tony
Betts, Clive


Barnes, Harry
Blackman, Liz


Barron, Kevin
Blears, Ms Hazel





Blizzard, Bob
Follett Barbara


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Borrow, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foulkes, George


Bradshaw, Ben
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Buck, Ms Karen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burden, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Goggins, Paul


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grogan, John


Caplin, Ivor
Gunnell, John


Casale, Roger
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caton, Martin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cawsey, Ian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chaytor, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chisholm, Malcolm
Healey, John


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hesford, Stephen



Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clelland, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clwyd, Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coaker, Vernon
Howells, Dr Kim


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cohen, Harry
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coleman, Iain
Hurst, Alan


Colman, Tony
Hutton, John


Connarty, Michael
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cooper, Yvette
Illsley, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cox, Tom
Jamieson, David


Cranston, Ross
Jenkins, Brian


Crausby, David
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Denham, John
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dismore, Andrew
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobbin, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Drew, David
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Drown, Ms Julia
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kidney, David


Edwards, Huw
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Efford, Clive
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Ennis, Jeff
Laxton, Bob


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lepper, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Levitt, Tom


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)






Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Raynsford, Nick


Linton, Martin
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lock, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Love, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


McAllion, John
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McCabe, Steve
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rowlands, Ted


McDonagh, Siobhain
Roy, Frank


Macdonald, Calum
Ruane, Chris


McDonnell, John
Ruddock, Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McIsaac, Shona
Ryan, Ms Joan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Salter, Martin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sarwar, Mohammad


McNamara, Kevin
Savidge, Malcolm


McNulty, Tony
Sawford, Phil


MacShane, Denis
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sedgemore, Brian


McWalter, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Maxton, John



Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meale, Alan
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morley, Elliot
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stringer, Graham


Mountford, Kali
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mudie, George
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Norris, Dan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Timms, Stephen


Pearson, Ian
Tipping, Paddy


Pendry, Tom
Todd, Mark


Perham, Ms Linda
Touhig, Don


Pickthall, Colin
Trickett, Jon


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pond, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pound, Stephen
Tynan, Bill


Powell, Sir Raymond
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Primarolo, Dawn
Watts, David


Prosser, Gwyn
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Purchase, Ken
Wicks, Malcolm


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Quinn, Lawrie



Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rammell, Bill
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rapson, Syd
Wilson, Brian





Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wood, Mike
Wyatt, Derek


Woodward, Shaun



Woolas, Phil
Tellers for the Noes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Sayeed: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The next census is only nine months away. The Bill will amend the Census Act 1920 to enable a question on religion to be included in the 2001 census. The question will be voluntary.
I thank hon. Members from all parties for their valuable contributions to all stages of our proceedings. I especially thank my right hon. and hon. Friends, who sought, quite properly, to ask questions about the validity of the framing of the Bill, its purpose, and whether it would achieve its aim. They are right to ask such questions; it is part of the function of the House to question all legislation. I also thank the Government for providing time to ensure that the Bill makes progress.
The Bill offers an opportunity to gather valuable information. Along with information gleaned from the census question on ethnic groups, the question for which the Bill provides will help to produce baseline figures from which central Government may monitor policies on racial disadvantage and social exclusion. Local authorities and health authorities will be better able to plan the services for their areas using those figures.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is revealing more than we have managed to winkle out of the Government so far. That is proper, because we are considering my hon. Friend's Bill. However, does my hon. Friend anticipate that policy may be determined and money may be directed to specific religious groups and affiliations on the basis of information yielded by the question on religion in the census?

Mr. Sayeed: On answers to the religious question alone, the answer is probably no. However, combined with the information from other questions, the answer is probably yes. That is proper. It is the function of local government and central Government to reduce disadvantage. If the information, which answers to the religious question would provide, combined with other information, demonstrates disadvantage, it is right and proper that the House should consider voting for, and the Government should consider proposing, extra funds for those who need more support.

Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that it is likely or probable that what he describes as disadvantage—we may need to consider that in more detail—can be reasonably, properly or accurately allied to religious affiliation in such a way that will make policy direction practical and feasible?

Mr. Sayeed: I believe that I clearly stated that, by itself, the question on religion probably would not provide


the answers that demonstrate disadvantage, but that, combined with other questions, it may do so. If it does, Governments should take note.

Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of the way in which that might work? The next step is obviously to ascertain whether it is worth doing, but it would be helpful to hear a specific example.

Mr. Sayeed: I am happy to assist the hon. Gentleman. We believe that there are approximately 2 million Muslims in this country. As far as I know, there are only two Muslim state-funded schools. A Muslim state-funded school must follow the national curriculum, just as a Church of England school, a Catholic school or a Jewish school has to follow the national curriculum. The information that the census reveals is not individualised, but covers groups of about 150 people at a time. If it shows a high concentration of Muslims in a specific area, and they want a state-funded Muslim school, a local authority may decide that it would be right to provide it, just as in the past, local authorities have decided that it was right to provide state funding for Jewish, Church of England or Catholic schools.

Mr. Forth: Our debate is proving to be the most productive of all the discussions so far, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. However, on what basis does my hon. Friend believe that Roman Catholic, Jewish and other religious schools have already been successfully established throughout the country, without the benefit of the information that the new question on the census form would provide? How will the new information suddenly transform the educational and social landscape in the way in which my hon. Friend describes?

Mr. Sayeed: I do not suggest that that will happen suddenly. However, over a period of time, it could happen. I remind my right hon. Friend that many Jewish schools were initially set up on a private basis and given state funding later.

Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sayeed: I should like to make a little progress on that point. I believe that it is important to improve race relations in this country. Sometimes groups believe that there is prejudice against them when that is not the case. However, we cannot know whether there is prejudice without the facts. I also believe that prejudice and discrimination take place—sometimes for historical reasons, but sometimes because we do not know the facts and therefore cannot give support where it is necessary.
The Bill represents a modest step to improve race relations, which is one reason why I was happy to support it and introduce it to the House once it had been agreed that answering the question on religion would be voluntary. The wording of the proposed census question has been subject to detailed consultation with not only the users of census statistics, but a wide range of religious organisations including the Christian Churches, the Board

of Deputies of British Jews, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Network of Sikh Organisations, the Buddhist Society and the National Council of Hindu Temples.

Dr. Harris: What about the National Secular Society?

Mr. Sayeed: I am not aware that the National Secular Society is promoting the inclusion of a question on religion in the census form. Indeed, I would find that somewhat quixotic.

Dr. Harris: It is proposed that the form should include a box that people could tick to show that they take no religious view. Many of those who describe themselves as secular, humanist or atheist would wish to tick such a box. They are categories of people, as are those who subscribe to religions, so one would have thought that their representative groups would have been consulted. Perhaps they have.

Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman should read the Committee debates and get a copy of the proposed census form, which was amended according to the assurances given by the Minister in Committee. If he does so, he will see that a series of religions have been specified and that a box may be ticked. People may tick the "none" box or write in their own religion or, as the Bill allows, not answer the question at all. Provided that the measure makes progress, the form will make it clear that people do not have to tick the religion box if they do not wish to do so.
Not only were the detailed cases for the information that such a question could provide carefully assessed, but the public concerns and sensitivities to such a question were considered by the Office for National Statistics in the light of the criteria set out for the selection of census questions. In particular, public reaction to a question on religion was assessed in two major tests of census questions: the 1997 census test and the 1999 census rehearsal. Both exercises showed that the public are generally prepared to answer such a question, at least to a level comparable with that achieved by most other census questions, and that the quality of the responses is sufficient to provide the information that would meet users' express needs. If those two criteria cannot be fulfilled, amending the 1920 Act will be pointless.
To reflect the sensitivity with which some people regard religion, the Bill deliberately provides for the question on religion to be voluntary. However, as I said on Report, although census officials think that making the question voluntary may affect the response, I understand that evidence suggests that the integrity and value of the information obtained will not be compromised. Such a question is necessary now as opposed to 30, 20 or perhaps even 10 years ago because we have a pluralistic, multi-faith, multicultural society. Many people in today's society choose to identify themselves in terms of their religion or culture, and the 2001 census provides a once-in-a-decade opportunity to collect information from groups that increasingly prefer primarily to identify themselves in such a way.
I return to why the Bill is sensible and why I was happy to take it up in the Commons. There are tensions in all multicultural, multiracial, multi-faith societies. Discrimination fuels those tensions. If we know the facts,


we can better plan what we are to do. This modest change to the 1920 Act will help us to gather the facts and, if we wish to do so, make a fairer society. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I support the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and the Government on taking a lead on the issue. It was said on Report that Scotland had introduced such a measure before England, but I have to tell the House that the Scottish Executive opposed including a religion question in the census a few months ago while the Government in Whitehall and people such as the hon. Gentleman were arguing the case for it. The fact that England was in a sense ahead had some influence on the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament and, in particular, the Equal Opportunities Committee looked at what was happening in England, but, more important, listened to what many groups in Scotland were saying.
Initially, the Scottish Executive said that there was no religion question on the census because nobody had asked for one, but when the Equal Opportunities Committee listened to ethnic minority groups and the Commission for Racial Equality in particular, it became absolutely clear that there was a big demand for such a question to be included. There is an important lesson here about how we listen to society and, in particular, to minorities in society, although numerically larger religious groups also support the inclusion of such a question for two important reasons: monitoring factors, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred, and its importance in terms of delivery of services.
It is significant that such a question is to be included for the first time, although there were concerns about compulsion. The Government have achieved the right solution by making the question, in effect, voluntary. I commend my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for her clear explanation of the legalities.

Mr. Forth: Were you here?

Mr. Chisholm: I was present throughout the debate on Report, apart from about five minutes, and I was very impressed by my hon. Friend's explanation. However, I was not impressed by the pedantic points that were made. The correct solution has been found and I commend the Government and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire for what they have done.

Mr. Forth: I have not yet heard anything to persuade me of the Bill's value—quite the opposite, in fact—and I was obviously sitting in a different Chamber in a different House of Commons from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm). The muddle that emerged from our interesting and useful debate on Report simply convinced me that the Bill is not only unnecessary, but undesirable and almost certainly unworkable and useless. There is plenty of scope, therefore, for further debate on Third Reading before the House plunges ahead and accepts a Bill that could be mistaken.
We have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) the clearest and most honest explanation yet of what the Bill is all about. There

was a lot of obfuscation and mistiness in the early stages, but the mist is clearing and we can see the measure for what it is. My hon. Friend made play of the fact that many religious groups have been consulted and are all keen for the Bill to make progress. That may or may not be so, and we may or may not in our different ways be impressed by those organisations so as to drive legislation through the parliamentary process and on to the statute book. Whether the Muslims, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Christians—Catholic or Protestant—all want the Bill is relevant but not conclusive. Simply to say that lots of people up and down the country want something does not necessarily make it good or desirable—nor does it give us sufficient reason to legislate on the matter.
The latest figures that I saw suggested that about 7 or 8 per cent. of the population in England regularly attend church. Perhaps we should apply a reasonable test when people claim a religious affiliation to show whether or not that is realistic. That would patently not be possible within the mechanisms available in the census.
However, that raises a relevant issue. The ludicrous way in which the Government decided to measure unemployment was to ask people whether they feel unemployed and whether they think they are looking for another job, and if so to put them down. The traditional claimant count method was much more reliable. It is too late to put such a provision in the Bill. The fact that a number of people—we do not know how many, because the question is not yet on the census form—of the Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Christian faiths think that this would be a jolly good idea is not enough to persuade me that it should be ushered on to the statute book. It is a relevant factor, but that is all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire went on usefully to deal with the semi-hidden part of the Bill, which is all this business about disadvantage. He suggested that if we find out where people of different claimed faiths live, we will be able better to direct our policies and our money. That is probably the real reason for the Bill. That worries me considerably. If we are to direct taxpayers' money on the basis of religious faiths—

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael J.Martin): Order. That matter is not in the Bill. Perhaps I should have brought the right hon. Member to order. The House will forgive me for not doing so, but I am not going to let him get away with it now that I have my wits about me.

Mr. Forth: There I was, Mr. Deputy Speaker, following up the points so admirably made by the promoter of the Bill. Of course, I accept your ruling. That goes without saying.
We are left with the mechanisms that flow from the provisions of the Bill and the proposed question. Running through all our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and through the Bill, narrow though it may be, is the issue of the value that the responses to the question are likely to have if they are voluntary. Having arrived at Third Reading, the question that we must ask ourselves is, if the Bill is to have the benefits to which my hon. Friend alluded, and if it is up to people whether they answer the question, what reliability can we place on the data that will flow from the answer? That is an important question. If people answer the question only if they feel like it, depending on the extent of their


motivation, we may get a bias in the results that could give rise to unintended or undesirable policy effects, given what my hon. Friend described as the ultimate objective.
Many people have said that the voluntary nature of the question in the Bill has saved its bacon. Funnily enough—I admit it is a paradox—if the question had been mandatory and subject to penalties for non-answer or false answer, I might have been more persuaded that the answer to the question would have value. The Government have conceded the point and said that they are a bit nervous about this aspect, so are prepared for the question to be voluntary or without penalty. That threatens to undermine the whole thrust and validity of the Bill.
However, it is not that simple, and we are left with a paradox. Can the question be voluntary if it is merely without penalty, so that people do not have to answer the question and no penalty is attached? I was almost persuaded of that until my hon. Friend pointed out that at the end of the census form, even with this question included in it and without penalty, people have to sign a declaration, under penalty, saying that everything that they have said in the form is true.
That raises the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) raised in his excellent amendment, on which we have just voted. If people were minded to mis-state, falsify or mislead in their answer to the question, would they be subject to a penalty under the terms of the declaration—although not under the amendment, which was lost? If so, how would we ever know? I suppose we have reached the ultimate irony. How can we ever know whether the question has any meaning given that it touches on a matter of faith, which is the most personal and individual aspect of a person's existence, and how do we know whether it has been answered properly? Will inspectors lurk outside people's houses and see where they go to worship? Will they match that behaviour with the form, or will we accept that everyone who bothers to answer the question is bound to answer it correctly? I do not know the answer to that. Even on Third Reading, there remain many questions that have not yet been satisfactorily answered.
We were taken through the logic which says that there remains a legal duty to comply with the census form but that it is not an offence not to comply and there is no penalty if people do not comply. However, as I understand it, there is a penalty when it comes to the declaration. People can apparently meander through the census form, come to this question, scratch their head, decide whether they are interested or want to bother replying, give an answer that may or may not be true, and when they come to the declaration say, "Oh dear, I thought I was going to get away with this, but perhaps I'll get caught under the declaration." Presumably, the declaration applies to the totality of the form, even as amended by the Bill. We may end up with a circularity that will put individuals in a difficult position.
All in all, one is left wondering whether this measure has the value that people ascribe to it. In the end, we will all have to strike a balance and decide whether we believe that it is proper for the state to intrude in people's private lives through the vehicle of the census form as amended by the Bill. What puzzles me about Labour Members is that I thought that most of them were wedded to idea of civil liberties and individual rights but, now when it suits

them—or probably when they are told to—they conveniently abandon those views. That issue came up in the Football (Disorder) Bill and now in this Bill. In fairness—I do not often say this, so I shall say it very quietly and hope that no one notices—on this occasion the Liberal Democrats are taking a much more principled view than Labour Members. Judging by what the Liberal Democrats said about the football Bill, and what they have said about this Bill, I conclude that their views are much more in line with what I always understood to be their traditional attitude to individual and civil liberties. Labour Members, meanwhile, seem much more prepared to abandon such attitudes, almost casually.
Some of us Conservatives are not prepared to do that, and I have not yet heard anything—even from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, and certainly not from the Minister—to persuade me that the Bill justifies support from the House and should be enacted. It is simply not good enough for anyone, not even my hon. Friend, to say, "Because lots of religious people and organisations think the Bill is a good idea, that's it".

Mr. Sayeed: I did not say that.

Mr. Forth: If I have misquoted my hon. Friend, I will give way to him.

Mr. Sayeed: I know that my right hon. Friend does not wish to traduce me. I specified those who were in favour of the Bill, but I did not say that, because they were in favour of it, it should become law.

Mr. Forth: I apologise to my hon. Friend if I misinterpreted what he said. If he meant that if organisations such as those he cited expressed support for the Bill we should take that into account, of course I agree with him. After all, our job is always to take into account the widest possible range of views. We must ask, however, how many of those living in the United Kingdom—the number is now approaching 60 million—can be said to be represented even by the eminent organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend. I would hazard a guess that that applies to only a certain proportion.
I accept that it is difficult to strike the right balance, but we must ask ourselves how comfortable people will feel about being asked to tell the Government and other authorities about their religious beliefs—and whether, having been asked that question, they will be prepared to answer it comfortably, openly and honestly. Many may well not want to answer it, which leads us to question the validity of the outcome of the exercise.
I am worried by a more serious possibility: that people who have no religious view, or are not prepared to express a view that they have, will be disadvantaged. That may apply to individuals, groups or communities. If moneys were indeed directed in some serious way, yet to be fully revealed, to those with certain religious affiliations, by implication those moneys would be withheld from other groups. One wonders whether, once such a process was fully under way and better understood, a reverse process might enable people to be persuaded in future to give certain information on the form in order to gain advantage.
I have not yet heard enough to convince me that the Bill will be of benefit. I understand why some may want it, and why others may feel nervous about it; I certainly


do. Unless I hear a much more compelling argument for the Bill between now and the vote, I am inclined to oppose it.

Dr. Harris: Let me say at the outset that—according to its letterhead—I am an honorary associate of the National Secular Society. Speaking as a Back Bencher, I think many of my views are in line with those of the society.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made a number of good points, not least in admitting that—in this as in so much else—the Liberal Democrats are both principled and consistent. In fact, Conservative Members are not consistent in their descriptions of my party, but we will accept that last description.
I wish to make four general points. I shall make them briefly, because I do not wish to detain the House. The first relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) during the debate on the amendment. As I said then, I intended to make the same point on Third Reading. It is a legal point relating to the opinion given by the vice-chancellor of London university. I shall not repeat what the hon. Gentleman said, but I agree with him: there is clearly a difference of legal opinion, and it would have been nice if we had had more time to establish which opinion was more likely to be right. The possibility of a judicial review, causing delay, may threaten more than just a religious question in the census.
My second point is this. The Bill leaves us with a question that is "intrusive", according to a letter to the Minister from the National Secular Society dated 24 July. The society says that the question is also
much too simplistic to ascertain accurately people's religious beliefs
—I agree with that—
or affiliations—or lack of them.
Like me, the society is
concerned that the results would be inaccurate and misleading, and…would be used by religious bodies to obtain further unjustified privileges.
That, I think, goes to the heart of the matter.
The Minister did not reassure me when she spoke about the amendment. Retaining a penalty for knowingly giving false information will not remove the worry that is felt. The Minister defended the penalty by saying that it would not be enforced. That is an interesting approach to dealing with failure to fulfil a legal duty, and, I suspect, not one that the Minister would wish to advertise as being part of Government policy in other areas of the law. The danger is that people who have no strong religious belief but who may have been baptised or born into a certain religion will be much more tempted not to answer the question than to tick the box marked "No religious belief'.
Such people—especially if they are not as deeply involved with these matters as some of us who care passionately about the right to religious freedom, or the freedom not to be religious—may worry about having claimed to have no religious belief, although they have been baptised, when they are asked to state that they have filled up the form accurately. I do not think adequate assurances have been given, and that is one of the main reasons why I will vote against Third Reading if the House divides.
I am also worried about the principle of a "voluntary" question. The existence of such a question, when a penalty can be imposed for the deliberate giving of incorrect information, surely threatens the validity of the question itself. People like me fear that the information provided by the census will be heavily biased in favour of presuming a greater tendency towards religious belief than currently exists.
There must be data on church attendance, and it must be possible to obtain them. There are also data on synagogue attendance, which are collected and, indeed, worried about—for understandable reasons, from the perspective of those involved. If people feel strongly that they require information about religious belief—which, as a principle, I question—it should be up to such people and organisations to collect the data. The state should not be expected to subsidise the provision of services for the expression of a particular opinion.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. In fact, research is available: I have some here. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, for example, that 10 per cent. of the nation is Roman Catholic and 27.1 per cent. agnostic.

Dr. Harris: I suspect that 10 per cent. of people describe themselves as Roman Catholic when the question is posed in a certain way. There are various ways of describing religion: it may be defined in terms of birth, baptism, upbringing, church attendance or, dare I say, theological belief.
I must end my speech soon, but I want to say something about the reason given by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire for the fact that this information is required. On Third Reading, we are left with a Bill that is liable for the provision of information allowing the state to collect data that suggest that it should fund, for instance, more religious schools. That was the example given by the hon. Gentleman. This is my view rather than that of my party, but I question whether the state's role includes the funding of Jewish, Muslim, Church of England or Roman Catholic schools. I favour disestablishment of the Church of England—in this instance, I agree with my party—and I certainly see no need for the state to have such a role.
I will come back to the issue of the Bill on Third Reading because I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are restless and perhaps rightly so. If by dint of the Bill it becomes the Government's duty and funding necessity to collect those data, we are going far too far, with the state seeking religious grounds to interfere in our daily lives. It should be up to religious organisations to make the case, as they have had to with great difficulty for the Muslims. One might say that there is an imbalance there.
Therefore, I do not accept the principle of the motives behind the Bill that we are left with on Third Reading. I do not believe that the census will give accurate information even for the purpose that the supporters of the Bill wish it to achieve. I believe that it is an unjustified intrusion into personal beliefs, made worse by the fact that there is an implied penalty for people who are not sure whether they have answered the question correctly, which will not only bias the answers, but cause concern to many people. That is why, from a personal perspective and because of the principles that I have set out, I shall seek to oppose the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Edward Davey: Despite the strong arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and the compliments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I will support the Bill on Third Reading. On Second Reading I made my concerns clear about the questions and about whether the Government should ask for such information from the individual citizen, but I also made it clear that the fact that the question was voluntary was important. That improvement, which was made in the other place before the Bill came to the House, was a major step forward.
On Second Reading, however, I asked the Minister whether it would be made clear on the form that the question was voluntary. We did not have a reply then, but I was delighted to read in the Committee Hansard that she made that pledge, and she has reiterated it tonight. It has been made clear tonight that she has statutory cover to ensure that on the census form, by that question—[Interruption.] Conservative Members shake their heads, meaning that she has not, but I remind them that we had an exchange about that provision earlier. My hon. Friend confirmed that under section 3(1)(f) of the Census Act, Ministers are allowed to put forward regulations that stipulate how the form will be designed, and other aspects of the form.
Therefore the Minister has confirmed that she does have a power. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) wish to intervene?

Mr. Tyrie: When the hon. Gentleman is ready.

Mr. Davey: I am ready.

Mr. Tyrie: The 1920 Act makes it clear that answering questions is a requirement. The Bill makes it clear that answering the question is a requirement. That is the fundamental inconsistency.

Mr. Davey: That is a different point from the one that I was trying to make, which was whether it would be possible for the Minister to put a regulation before the House that enabled the words, "This is a voluntary question" to be added to the form after the question asking the individual what his religious belief was. That was the simple question that I tried to ask: whether the Government can pass that regulation about the form of the question, and the words on the census form. It seems from reading the Census Act that the Government have that power. That was the reassurance that I sought on Second Reading, and I am delighted that the Minister has been able to confirm it tonight.

Mr. Tyrie: I shall have just one more go. It is clear from the Bill that completing the question is a requirement. It is not something that is requested of recipients of the form; it is a requirement. Several of us have received detailed legal opinions suggesting that the Government do not, therefore, have the power to describe the question on the form as voluntary, and that to do so may be subject to judicial review and is almost certainly ultra vires. We have had no reassurance from the Minister on that point.

Mr. Davey: I fear that we are back to an exchange that the hon. Gentleman and I had on Second Reading, when

we debated whether the fact that the Bill takes away the penalty changes the nature of the question from compulsory to voluntary. I disagreed with him on Second Reading, and I am afraid that I will have to disagree with him now.
Taking away the penalty is important in making it clear in law that the question is voluntary. If failing to answer a question does not result in a penalty, I cannot see how it can be seen to be compulsory. On Second Reading the hon. Gentleman had a different interpretation; I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
Because the Minister has given the assurance that the regulations that will be forthcoming will ensure that those words are on the census form next to that particular question—indeed, directly after the words—I feel much more able to support the Bill. I should say that I have agreed with my right hon. and hon. Friends that my party will have a free vote. I understand that there are colleagues who, because religious issues are involved, wish to express a different opinion. That is how things should be on such a Bill.
I would not want to end by saying that I welcomed the Bill because, as the debates throughout our proceedings on it have shown, it has not been the most effectively drafted Bill. In an ideal world, I would have liked a number of other amendments. Indeed, we voted for the amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).
The Bill is not perfect. The benefits are not huge, but on balance, given the support for the measure within the ethnic minority groupings and various religious groups, I—and, I know, many of my colleagues—will support the Bill in the Lobby.

Mr. Tyrie: I will not detain the House for very long. I have already made many of the points that I wanted to make in the debate and on earlier occasions.
I like the idea that every time there is a difference of view in a party, there should be a free vote. I can imagine that if that idea were to spread like an infection to other parts of the House, we would soon conduct our business very differently, and it would become very exciting.

Mr. Forth: This is a private Member's Bill.

Mr. Tyrie: As my right hon. Friend points out, it is technically a private Member's Bill, although it has the support of the Government, who are whipping their party through to support it.
I shall not go through all the arguments again, but I shall touch briefly on a few of them. The first is whether religious groups want the legislation. The plain fact is that they are divided on it. They are not united. The Jewish community in particular is divided. It is wrong to suggest that there is overwhelming pressure for the measure from all people who hold deep religious convictions. That is not correct.
The second issue is the purpose to which the information will be put. I have not heard a convincing argument from anyone about what exactly the information will be used for. I have certainly not heard a convincing argument from the Government.
The third issue is the cost. It costs, I think, £250 million, or something very close to that, to run the census. I do not see the Minister nodding or shaking her head. I can only assume that she does not know what the figure is at this minute, but it sounds like a lot of money to run a census. It strikes me that there might be cheaper and more effective ways of obtaining the information—for example, through survey data.
In any case, the three points that I have just made are largely water under the bridge. What we are debating now is whether we should have a voluntary question on religion in the next census. The Government initially wanted a compulsory question, and they blundered when they amended the Bill in the Lords to reflect concern that it should be voluntary. As is well known to the House, they removed the financial penalty, but did not make the question voluntary.
We tried to clear that up in Committee, but the Government refused. That has left us with two clear bits of nonsense in the Bill. The first is that the Government are adding a statement on the voluntary nature of the question on census forms, although the Bill requires recipients to fill it in. The Bill's long title is very clear on that point, which we have made on numerous occasions.
I think that it is worth pausing for a moment to ask what the word "require" means. Can it mean anything other than that there is a requirement? I note Professor Zellick's legal advice on that point. He writes that the word "require" in all its forms and uses imports the notion of compulsion. When I read that, I thought that that was so blindingly obvious that it really was not necessary to put it in a legal opinion. Unfortunately, today's debate has suggested that Professor Zellick was right on the button in making that point.
The second piece of nonsense is that although making a false statement is still an offence, refusing to answer the question at all is not. Clearly that cannot have been the Government's intention when they first drafted the Bill. The Bill is defective in that sense also.

Mr. Forth: Before my hon. Friend leaves that issue, he will not forget, will he, the declaration that has entered the lists quite late in our proceedings as another factor to be taken into account? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) was very helpful in pointing out that there still exists the overriding element of the declaration at the end of the form, which creates an overriding, compulsory, mandatory and penalty-bearing element that may well feed back into all the other questions.

Mr. Tyrie: My right hon. Friend raises various issues, but I shall briefly address only two of them. The first is that people filling in the form might quite reasonably be confused by the fact that a statement at the side of one question states that it is voluntary, whereas, at the bottom of the form, there is a statement that it is not voluntary but compulsory.
The second point is that that is precisely the type of issue that could generate many problems if there were a judicial review. I would not be at all surprised to hear that there will be a judicial review of the legislation. If there is, the debate that we are having now will at least clarify where responsibility for the mess lies. The mess is not due to the fact that the legislation is a private Member's

Bill, and it does not lie with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, who has done a noble service in supporting it. He sincerely believes in the arguments that he has advanced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I request that the hon. Gentleman address the occupant of the Chair?

Mr. Tyrie: The mess lies in the fact that the Government, who have backed the Bill, are prepared to put defective legislation on to the statute book.
Why have the Government not simply made a minor, straightforward amendment to make it clear that the question is voluntary? They could do that and send the Bill back to the other place, which would almost certainly agree to such an amendment. That process would not take very long. I still do not fully grasp why the Government have set their face against doing that. However, I have two possible related explanations for the Government's attitude, one of which I have mentioned already.
The first explantation is that there is a huge logjam of legislation in the other place, and the Government do not want to add to it. We are being asked to pass defective legislation to ease the Government's problem with their legislative programme. I do not think that that is a good reason for not trying to amend the Bill.
The second explanation—it is related—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not concern himself with trying to amend the Bill. We are on Third Reading, which means that we are beyond amending it.

Mr. Tyrie: It is a great pity that—as you have rightly pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we have arrived at the point at which we cannot improve the Bill. As you have correctly observed, we are in the position of "take it or leave it." I am moving towards the position of wanting to leave it.
I suspect that the second reason why the Government decided to choose the "take it" option, rather than the option of amendment—if I dare mention that word one last time—is that they encouraged support for the Bill too late. Consequently, Ministers are on a very tight schedule to ensure that everything is in place for the 2001 census. They will have only themselves to blame if they discover that the next census—which will be the first for many decades—is obstructed in the courts. If that happens, we know who will be responsible. If Britain's long, steady series of censuses is interrupted, we will know that that happened because the Government introduced defective legislation. We know where the responsibility will lie—on the Treasury Bench, where Ministers are giggling about it even now.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I first express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) for the way in which he has introduced the Bill. Although the Opposition want to support the Bill, there are quite a few hurdles in the way, and the Government have not done much to assist us in getting over them.
Although the Bill is called the Census (Amendment) Bill, I think that it would be better known as the Census (Amendment) (House of Lords Logjam) Bill. The reason


why the Government have not accepted perfectly reasonable amendments to sort out the matter once and for all is that they do not want the Bill to go back to the other place, thereby adding to the logjam. The most honest thing that the Minister could do in her reply is to admit that. That, however, is unlikely.
The Opposition have two fundamental difficulties with the legislation, the first of which could be dealt with even at this late stage—and I am not referring to amendments. In dealing with the question "What is your religion?" in the questionnaire, it would be quite possible to distinguish between people's religious belief and their religious practice. There is quite a large difference between someone who is a regular attender at a place of worship and someone who has a belief but may not worship. If the census results are to be at all accurate, that is quite an important distinction.
Another point on that question—which I made on Second Reading, and the Minister, probably erroneously, overlooked—deals with the proposed fourth line of the question. The question begins, "What is your religion?", followed by, "Tick one box only." The first choice is "none", and the second is
Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations).
If the Minister is still in her position next March or April, she will no doubt notice many angry letters to The Times from people pointing out that the words "Church of England" and "Protestant" are not mutually exclusive. "Protestant" encompasses "Church of England", although it does not include "Catholic". It is a bit like—to put it in Labour-party language—asking someone, "Are you Campaign group or Labour?" The Campaign group is allegedly a part of the Labour party. The Church of England is a part of the Protestant Church, and to present the two as alternatives is unfortunate. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board and think about them before finally signing off on subject of the questionnaire.
The second difficulty with the legislation has been the stuff of debate both in Committee and in our earlier debate on the amendment. The Opposition believe that the Minister's advice that the question is voluntary is not good advice. She says that she believes in good faith that the question is voluntary, and I accept that she is speaking in good faith. However, we have heard two entirely unrelated legal opinions in today's debates, and although neither of those who gave an opinion knew that the other was giving an opinion, both said that it would remain unlawful not to answer the question. Therefore, the question is involuntary.
As I said in our earlier debate, that may seem to be a nit-picking point. The significant point is that those who might be opposed to the Bill will challenge it in the courts, and there may well be a judicial review. As I said, the question could have been voluntary if the Minister had accepted what I thought were perfectly reasonable amendments.
It is the Opposition's opinion that the Bill will make bad law; it is being passed in an unsatisfactory form. The Conservative party is not in the business of supporting bad law. As I said at the outset, we want to be able to support the Bill, but while we do not oppose the question, we cannot support it either. Under the circumstances, therefore, I shall be urging my hon. Friends to abstain if there is a Division.

Miss Melanie Johnson: I can be brief because on Third Reading we have heard arguments similar to those that we heard at earlier stages. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) for introducing the Bill and guiding it through the House. The Government welcome the opportunity that it will provide to enable a question on religion to be included in the 2001 census. We recognise the importance of a clear picture of the diversity of faith communities in the United Kingdom to our ability to address the concerns and needs of all sections of the community, as the hon. Gentleman said. The census is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to do so for local areas on a reliable and consistent basis across the country.
I made such points in response to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when the Bill was last discussed in this place on 20 June. As I pointed out to him, he speaks with a strong hint of, "Why bother with a census at all?" He may have been joined by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) in such remarks. That is extraordinary given that the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in a previous Government who relied on and drew in census data on a wide range of issues, in order to inform the policies and processes of government, just as we are proposing to do.
The ethnic and faith communities regard the 2001 census as an important opportunity for them to identify themselves in terms of their religion in addition to the broader ethnic group classification that is used in the census. Perhaps it is worth making a point about the form of the question. Some Opposition Members—such as the hon. Members for Chichester and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—spoke about that. The form of the question is the form that was most clearly understood in the road testing and rehearsals that the Office for National Statistics carries out in preparation for the large logistical exercise which a census inevitably is.
We have of course been mindful of the particular sensitivities of such a question. The Government took special note of the concerns expressed in the other place. We listened carefully to the views not only of members of that House, but of members of the general public who would be required to supply information. Consequently, the Government supported the amendment that removed the statutory penalty for anyone who refuses or neglects to state in their census return the particulars in respect of religion—in effect making any such question on religion in the census voluntary.

Mr. Forth: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Johnson: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman once.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for entering into the spirit of debate. Will she explain, in response to what will apparently be the only intervention, what "required" means? What advice has she had on the meaning of the word in the title of the Bill? Will she please spell that out for us?

Miss Johnson: Perhaps I can best help the right hon. Gentleman by reference to dictionaries or common sense. I am not sure what his question relates to. I have already


explained what "required" means in this context—and on more than one occasion this evening. The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately not listening to what I have to say.
In approving the Bill, Parliament will bring census legislation in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland and Northern Ireland—

Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Johnson: No, I will not give way; I am wrapping up the debate.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Johnson: No, I am sorry but I am not giving way.
Subject to the passing of the necessary secondary legislation, such alignment will enable information on religion from the 2001 census to be available throughout the United Kingdom.
We attach importance to the Bill. The question will be voluntary, the information will be useful and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 355, Noes 4.

Division No. 294]
[7.35 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Burstow, Paul


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ainger, Nick
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)



Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Atherton, Ms Candy
Caplin, Ivor


Atkins, Charlotte
Casale, Roger


Austin, John
Caton, Martin


Ballard, Jackie
Chaytor, David


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clelland, David


Berry, Roger
Clwyd, Ann


Best, Harold
Coaker, Vernon


Betts, Clive
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blackman, Liz
Cohen, Harry


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coleman, Iain


Blizzard, Bob
Colman, Tony


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cooper, Yvette


Bradshaw, Ben
Corbett, Robin


Brake, Tom
Corston, Jean


Brand, Dr Peter
Cotter, Brian


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon(Dunfermline E)
Cox, Tom



Cranston, Ross


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Burden, Richard
Darvill, Keith


Burgon, Colin
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Burnett, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)





Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry(B'ham Hodge H)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Rt, Hon Berry (Alyn)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dobbin, Jim



Doran, Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Drew, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones Nigel (Cheltenham)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Efford, Clive
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Ellman, Mrs Louise



Ennis, Jeff
Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)


Fearn, Ronnie
Khabra, Piara S


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kidney, David


Fisher, Mark
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Flint, Caroline
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Flynn, Paul
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Follett, Barbara
Lepper David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Leslie, Chirstopher


Foster, Don (Bath)
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lewis Terry (Worsley)


Foulkes, George
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Livsey, Richard


Gerard, Neil
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lock David


Gidley, Sandra
Love, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAllion, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCabe, Steve


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Macdonald, Calum


Gorrie, Donald
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McIsaac, Shona


Grocott, Bruce
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grogan, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gunnell, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McNamara, Kevin


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McNulty, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
MacShane, Denis


Hancock, Mike
Mactaggart, Fiona


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McWalter, Tony


Healey, John
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hepburn, Stephen
Mallaber, Judy


Heppell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, David(Shettleston)


Hill, Keith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Martlew, Eric


Hope, Phil
Maxton, John


Hopkins, Kelvin
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howells, Dr Kim
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
 Michie, Mrs Ray (Angyll & Bute)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Miller, Andrew


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mitchell, Austin


Hurst, Alan
Moore, Michael


Hutton, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Illsley, Eric
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jenkins, Brian







Mountford, Kali
Salter, Martin


Mudie, George
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mullin, Chris
Savidge, Malcolm


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Sawford, Phil


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Sedgemore, Brian


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Norris, Dan
Shipley, Ms Debra


Oaten, Mark
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Olner, Bill
Skinner, Dennis


Öpik, Lembit
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Pearson, Ian



Perham, Ms Linda
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Pickthall, Colin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Pike, Peter L
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Plaskitt, James
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Pollard, Kerry
Soley, Clive


Pond, Chris
Southworth, Ms Helen


Pope, Greg
Squire, Ms Rachel


Pound, Stephen
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Powell, Sir Raymond
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Primarolo, Dawn
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Prosser, Gwyn
Stinchcombe, Paul


Purchase, Ken
Stoate, Dr Howard


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Quinn, Lawrie
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Rammell, Bill
Stringer, Graham


Rapson, Syd
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Raynsford, Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rendel, David



Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roy, Frank
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruane, Chris
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Ruddock, Joan
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Todd, Mark


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tonge, Dr Jenny





Touhig, Don
Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)


Trickett, Jon



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Willis, Phil


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wilson, Brian


Tyler, Paul
Winnick, David


Tynan, Bill
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wood, Mike


Wallace, James
Woodward, Shaun


Walley, Ms Joan
Woolas, Phil


Ward, Ms Claire
Worthington, Tony


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Watts, David
Wright, Tony (Cannock)



Wyatt, Derek


Webb, Steve



Welsh, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. Kevin Hughes.




NOES


Allan, Richard



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Mr. Eric Forth and


Leigh, Edward
Dr. Evan Harris.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(b),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure attributable to arrangements under the Act for the making of contributions towards costs incurred by persons for purposes connected with, or with the provision of assistance in relation to, interception warrants; and
(b) any allowances payable under the Act to the Intelligence Services Commissioner.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Question agreed to.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 19, 86, 88 and 97. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you enlighten me as to the first set of amendments? I tabled an amendment relating to communications data and I would like to speak on the subject, but I seem to have lost track of the process. Have we gone past the debate on communications data?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, it is just about to start. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman's amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to ask your guidance on how to draw a certain matter to the attention of the House. About a week ago, when we debated the Care Standards Bill, I raised with the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), the fact that provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill conflict with that Bill. Afterwards, the Minister kindly told me that the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), would write to me on the issue. The Home Office Minister is now present and I spoke to him earlier today, but I have yet to receive his letter. I therefore wish to draw the House's attention to the fact that, this evening, it might pass a piece of legislation that will make another one illegal. Will you rule on how to deal with that issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sometimes, one has to pester Ministers—and be very persistent.

Clause 2

MEANING AND LOCATION OF "INTERCEPTION" ETC

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 32, leave out ("address or other") and insert ("traffic").

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5, 23 to 32, and 126 and 127.

Mr. Clarke: First, I shall respond to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). He has pestered me most energetically, starting about 11 minutes ago. I told him that I was prepared to write to him. He raised the issue when we were considering the Care Standards Bill. The Minister of State, Department of Health discussed the matter with me. I told him that there was no conflict between the Bill and the Care Standards Bill. On that

basis, my hon. Friend gave that assurance to the House. The hon. Member for South Dorset is right, in that I told my hon. Friend the Minister that I would write to the hon. Gentleman to explain precisely why there was no conflict. I will do that. I have not been pestered and pestering should not have been needed, until a few moments ago. Being pestered as I am now, I will respond in the appropriate way.
The definition of communications data to which the amendments refer has been the subject of a great deal of important attention. We discussed it first in Committee. Principally, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) raised important points about whether communications data were more or less intrusive, as a concept of intruding on people's freedom and knowledge, than other forms of surveillance, which were involved in the Bill. It has been a positive and helpful debate.
In supporting the amendments and in working with both Opposition parties in the other place, we wished to secure the maximum possible agreement and to go forward with a Bill that we can all agree represents the right way of proceeding. I shall not repeat the point, certainly not this evening. I place on record the fact that we appreciate the efforts of Lord Cope of Berkeley, Lord McNally and Opposition Members in this place in seeking to reach an agreement on where we should go. I appreciate the efforts made by many organisations, in business and elsewhere, which were keen to try to improve the Bill in a variety of ways. The amendments on these clauses and those in other groups that we shall discuss this evening are the product of a positive process of trying to seek agreement and improve the Bill in a generally constructive way. It is appropriate to pay tribute to those who have been involved in that process.
The purpose of this group of amendments is to draw the definition of communications data in the Bill tightly enough to exclude the possibility that the contents of the communication could be assessed. We all understand that when reading telephone bills it is possible to find where the calls go. Everybody was concerned to ensure that the content of, for example, a webpage or whatever should not be caught by the Bill.
We were ready to deal with that, so the new definitions set out in the amendments satisfy, we believe, three areas of concern. They include in what manner and by what method a person communicates with another person or machine. They exclude what they say or what data they pass on once the connection has been established—for example, the content of communications. Importantly, they still allow for dial-through fraud to be properly investigated.
Redrafting the definition has been a complicated process, and so it may assist the House if I explain briefly what each part of the new definition as set out in amendments Nos. 3 and 24 is designed to achieve. First, paragraph (a) covers subscriber information. Paragraph (b) covers routing information. Paragraph (c) is designed to address dial-through fraud. Paragraph (d) catches the data which are found at the beginning of each packet in a packet-switched network, which indicates which communications data attach to which communication. The tailpiece to the new definition puts it beyond any doubt that, in relation to internet communications, traffic data stop at the apparatus within which files or programmes are stored, so that traffic data may identify a server but not a website or page.
Amendment No. 31 adds the Inland Revenue as a public authority that may be allowed to seek access to communications data under clause 24. We decided, with the agreement of others, to put that in the Bill in response to the recommendations of Lord Grabiner, to deal with the black economy in a way which I think most people consider positive and effective.
The Bill makes provision for orders that may add to the purposes for which communication data can be accessed, and similarly add to the list of those public authorities that may access such data. Amendments Nos. 27 and 32 ensure that these order-making powers are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
We need these order-making powers to take account of changing circumstances. We think it important to understand that the process is changing. We need order-making powers, and we accept that they should be affirmative subject to the resolution procedure.
We discussed this complicated and difficult area of the Bill in great detail in Committee—I put on record the efforts of the hon. Member for Hallam in trying to clarify these matters and develop them—and we believe that the definition of communications data is drawn tightly enough to exclude the possibility of accessing content. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to accept the amendment.

Mr. Oliver Heald: We have come a long way since Third Reading in this place. I thank all those organisations and individuals that have been involved in helping the Opposition in the House of Lords and in this place. I refer to bodies such as the Federation of the Electronics Industry, the Alliance for Electronic Business, the Internet Service Providers Association, the London Internet Exchange, the London Investment Banking Association, Justice, Liberty, the Conservative technology forum, Mr. Steven Brine, and the European Informatics Market.
I make no apology for listing those organisations and including Mr. Brine. They all have important interests in these matters. They have said from the outset that they support the principle that crimefighters should have the powers that they need and that there should be a proper framework for surveillance and the use of informants.
We reached the point on Third Reading in this place where the Government seemed unwilling to move further. The Opposition felt that the Government had not moved far enough. I join the tribute that has been paid to the work done by those in the House of Lords. I refer especially to Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Astor, with their team of Lord Goschen, Lord Northesk and Lord Lucas of Crudwell. The Liberal Democrats were ably led by Lord McNally. I even pay some tribute to Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Labour spokesman, who was forced to listen.
When we came to the end of Third Reading, I tabled a written question to the Minister to ascertain what amendments he intended to table in the Lords. He replied to the effect that he expected a very small number of minor and technical amendments. It is a tribute to the way in which matters have changed since the Bill was last in this place that we now have 29 pages of complete rewriting of the sections that most concerned the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.
I join in the welcome for these amendments, which deal with the important issue of communications data.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heald: Before I do so, I should say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said at the outset, on Second Reading, that she was concerned at the wide range of information which was covered by the power dealing with communications data. She expressed those difficulties fully. In Committee, we tabled amendments, which dealt with the issue. We tried to limit the power to cases where it was absolutely necessary to provide information and to deal with definitional problems.
We failed to make the progress that we should have done on that issue. However, it has been possible in the Lords, as a result of the new co-operation, to tighten the definitions of traffic data and address the issue of dial-through fraud, which had not been fully noted in this place. We therefore welcome the changes.
8 pm
At the end of the proceedings in the House of Lords, my noble Friend Lord Cope observed that the Bill had been much improved. Earlier today we heard from Madam Speaker how important it is to scrutinise legislation properly. This is a case in which the two Houses together have achieved a great deal. I have joshed the Minister slightly so far, but I agree with him that, as regards the first groups of amendments, the position is much improved.
It is right that the Bill should have passed through the House of Lords, and we accept the burden of the amendments, although we will want to see how the Bill works in practice, we will want to study the codes of practice in detail when they come before the House, and we will want to be sure that any order-making powers are exercised sensitively.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend kindly read a list of organisations that had helped with the Bill. Will he put it on record that the group from the European Informatics Market group, EURIM, of which I am chairman, was headed by Chris Sundt, who had previously worked for ICL and was brought out of retirement to help? He worked constructively with that group, with the Confederation of British Industry group and with Government officials. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that Chris Sundt was particularly helpful.

Mr. Heald: I am happy to do that. I did not list all the names of all the people who helped, but perhaps I should have done. I did not think that the House would want me to do so. Certainly, Chris Sundt of EURIM made a substantial and detailed contribution, as did Philip Virgo, who is with EURIM as well. I could also mention Tom Wills Sandford of the Federation of the Electronics Industry, Caspar Bowden of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, and Tim Baker of the London Investment Bankers Association. I could go on all night, but I shall not.

Mr. Cohen: I make no apology for speaking again on communications data, as I did at various stages in the


passage of the Bill through the House. As the Minister knows, I think that the provisions dealing with communications data are born of complacency, are unsatisfactory, and have little regard for the protection of privacy and commercial confidences. Despite the Lords amendments, I believe that the situation remains unsatisfactory.
I have no intention of going over issues previously debated, and if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that you would rule me out of order. However, I seek a simple answer to a simple question, to which the Minister can say yes or no. The question is: can communications data obtained by one body under a notice given to a telecommunications operator be disclosed at a later time to another body for use for another purpose?
That should be easy to answer, one way or the other. If the Minister says, "No, communications data cannot ever subsequently be used for purposes other than those originally specified in the notice given to the telecommunications operator," I can stop speaking now.
My view is that communications data can be obtained legitimately under the Bill and, at a later stage, the data can be disclosed to another body for another purpose. For example, if such data were obtained by the police, it is possible to see how the data could subsequently be disclosed to the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise, if powers described in some other legislation were exercised by those bodies.

Mr. Clarke: I hope that I can help my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in pressing this important point. The Data Protection Act 1998 already places restrictions on the use that can be made of personal data. In particular, the second data protection principle states:
Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Bill does not remove or subtract from that principle.
There is a national security exemption in the 1998 Act, but the existing law also provides safeguards against the dissemination of information by the intelligence service in relation to the form of special arrangements that must be in place under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Bill covers the point that he raises.

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful that the Minister has put that on the record. It is an interesting assurance, which I want to explore. I am not challenging the national security exemption, but let us consider the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, which offer another route for a large number of subsequent disclosures for other purposes.
For example, on Second Reading, I raised the matter of communications data being available for council tax purposes. The Minister denied that that would happen. Indeed, I was told in a parliamentary written answer on 10 July that the Data Protection Act places restrictions on the degree to which information may be shared by organisations—the point that the Minister has just made—but that shows that information can, indeed, be shared.
My understanding of section 29 of the 1998 Act is that its broad provisions permit a local authority to collect personal data for council tax purposes from any data controller, and that such disclosure of communications

data would therefore be consistent with the non-disclosure provisions outlined in section 29(3) of that Act—for instance, if the police decided to disclose communications data to local authorities, where those authorities had shown that failure to disclose would prejudice the collection of council tax.
The non-disclosure provisions in clause 27(4)(b), in the circumstances that I described, have the effect of negating the impact of the second principle, contrary to what the Minister said, and most of the other principles as well. I cite again the parliamentary answer that I received recently, in particular the reference to restrictions found in the Data Protection Act 1998.
I am at a loss to understand what those restrictions are, if the effect of the principles is negated by section 29 of that Act. I do not see what protection the Act offers in these circumstances.
Furthermore, I note that on the Home Office's website with respect to the Bill, Customs and Excise confirms that it obtains communications data 18, 000 times per quarter under the current arrangements. That represents 72, 000 notices a year under the Bill. I am not sure of the final number for all the self-authorising officials, but if we take into account the fact that communications data will be obtained by the Inland Revenue, more than 50 police forces, 400 local authorities and their benefits inspectors, the Department of Social Security, MI5, MI6, Government communications headquarters operations and possibly staff of the worthy egg inspectorate, among others, it is clear that we are dealing with half a million authorisation notices a year issued by hundreds of self-authorising officials.

Mr. Clarke: Does my hon. Friend accept that Customs and Excise is involved in that because one of its principal responsibilities is fighting organised crime, particularly organised drug crime? The relationships between the organised criminal networks are a key source of data in that fight. That is why, for Customs and Excise, that level of data collection is extremely important.

Mr. Cohen: I hear that point, but I am not sure that the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I tell the hon. Gentleman that we must relate our remarks to the Lords amendments before us and not go wide of those amendments?

Mr. Cohen: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am explaining why I am not satisfied that the Lords amendments go far enough in respect of communications data
I return to the point about the notices from hundreds of self-authorising officials. How on earth will such a rate of communications data obtaining be supervised by an overworked interception commissioner, presumably with just a handful of staff? Is he going to say, "Hey, Bob, can you look at this batch of 100,000 self-authorisations before lunch?" How can we expect the commissioner to supervise the hundreds of self-authorising officials, and hundreds of thousands of different acts of obtaining information?

Mr. David Maclean: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the egg inspectorate as an


example. Is he not worried about the new schedule, which does more than name a few other specific sub-departments in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of Health? Under the schedule, the relevant authority would be the whole Ministry or Department involved, and all its officials, who would then have a power that they did not have before.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we went into that question, we would not be dealing with the amendment.

Mr. Cohen: I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, who may want to expand on it later.
The problem is especially acute if self-authorising officials are later able to pass communications data to another body without anyone's knowledge. I have described how the later disclosures are not expressed in the notice given to a telecommunications operator.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The officials cannot do that.

Mr. Cohen: But they can pray in aid other legislation to get data from those who collected it originally. It follows that the interception commissioner examining the authorisation process would not know about such subsequent disclosures either, for the simple reason that they would not appear on the notice in the first place. To put it bluntly, the authorisation mechanism and other protections under chapter II of the Bill could be reduced to a meaningless sham if no record of subsequent disclosures is kept as part of the authorisation process.
I am not satisfied with the concessions made in the Lords. My hon. Friend said that the Data Protection Act 1988 was a protection. He repeats that as a mantra, but detailed examination reveals that the protection offered is not very strong. I suspect that it could be overridden easily: information could then be transferred and data used for purposes other than those specified when collected. The interception of communications commissioner would have little power to prevent that transfer of information; in fact he would have little knowledge of it.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister about the need to tackle organised crime, but at the beginning of our deliberations on the Bill he said that it was about striking a balance between what is public and what is private. That has not been properly achieved in respect of communications data. It is sad that the Bill does not contain the necessary safeguards in respect of the subsequent disclosure of communications data to a body not described on the original notice.
I am disappointed by the Lords amendments. My hon. Friend the Minister does not seem to have been fully advised about what the Data Protection Act 1988 would protect.

Mr. Richard Allan: Liberal Democrat Members are pleased with the Lords amendments, which are precisely what we hoped would be agreed in the other place. I remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said on Third Reading that we anticipated further amendments.
The Minister was kind enough to say that I raised in Committee the key point covered by the amendments. The Hansard record shows that the Minister did his best to defend the Bill, but at the time I felt that he was listening to our arguments. I had every confidence that he would think about them and perhaps that he would seek to amend the Bill. We are pleased that that is what happened.
The amendments deal with the problem that communications data in the historical sense were not appropriate to be covered by the Bill. An example of such data might be the records on a telephone bill of calls made. The amendments' adoption of the term "traffic data" is welcome, but the change is more than cosmetic. It extends the definition to include matters appropriate to the internet, and it goes beyond the older forms of telecommunication, which merely involve voice calls between specific numbers.
The phrase "big browser is watching you" has been used to encapsulate the concerns that have been raised about the Bill's effect on browsing among internet websites, and the extent to which communications data could bleed into that activity. We are pleased with Lord Bassam's specific assurance on the matter, when he said that the amendments
ensure that the definition cannot be interpreted to include any content of communication or interaction with websites.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 257.]
That is a very important and welcome change. We will need to see the codes of practice, and more work will have to be done to verify Lord Bassam's statement, but Ministers in both Houses have made clear the intention behind the amendments, and that is reassuring.
8.15 pm
My noble Friend Lord McNally said in another place that the new amendments offered a definition that we could live with. We do not intend to reduce our scrutiny of the application of the new definition of "traffic data", or of any codes of practice or regulations that are introduced, but we consider that we can live with the new definition. The Internet and e-commerce communities had been worried that the Bill would be so intrusive that it would damage this country's business interests, as well as the right to personal privacy that everyone expects to enjoy. We accept that that enjoyment must recognise the reasonable limits imposed by the need to deal with serious crime and national security.
We are pleased with the amendments. I am grateful for the Minister's kind words about the work that has been done by Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members in this House, and by Members of the House of Lords. My noble Friends Lords McNally and Phillips of Sudbury have been especially active, as have the Conservative peers with whom they have worked and to whom I also pay tribute. That was a good example of how to work together on complex and detailed matters.
There is no need to go into detail about the amendments. We will look at the codes of practice when they are published, but we now have a definition of "traffic data" that we can live with. The previous definition, of "communications data", would have been too intrusive, and not proportional to the safeguards covering matters of lesser security. It is quite proper that the interception of communications should require more stringent safeguards in terms of authorisation, and of those who can take out warrants for that purpose.
The amendments have general cross-party support. We welcome them, and hope that the House agrees to them.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I shall be brief. Conservative Members are pleased that the Government eventually listened to criticism of the Bill and introduced these amendments. We are also pleased with the level of co-operation extended by the Home Office. We warned at the outset of our proceedings about the effect of the Bill's provisions in respect of telecommunications. The Department of Trade and Industry washed its hands of the Bill, as did Oftel when it was confronted with the provisions relating to interception of communications.
The Home Office was left to rescue the Bill on its own, and Ministers and their officials have done their best. However, although I do not want to seem mealy mouthed, the latest briefing that I have received from FIPR describes the Bill as being
technically inept: ineffective against criminals while undermining the privacy, safety and security interests of honest citizens and businesses.
I will not go through that briefing. It is very long, but it does reveal the holes in the Bill. I will not even be tempted to read out some of the examples of possible complications that have been sent to me.
I understand that the Government are attempting to deal with difficult issues. The Human Rights Act 1998 precludes authorities from looking at various matters, while complicated regulations allow the Government, according to certain criteria set down in law, to overturn what is supposedly a basic human right. That difficulty is a result of human rights legislation overturning quite sensible regulations that the Government would want to introduce for the safety of individuals while ensuring that we find out about crimes that are being committed.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that we must look at the way in which the regulations will be introduced. As for the amendments on the cost of introducing the legislation, I do not want Her Majesty's Government to spend my taxpayers' money in dealing with matters that can be bypassed so simply. We want a simple set of regulations. We need to ensure that when a criminal is investigated, there are no loopholes—which the Bill and the amendments could well provide—that could allow a clever lawyer to say that under subsection so and so, somebody did not put the right tick in the right box at the right time. In that way, although everyone can see that someone is guilty of a crime, all the evidence that had been collected would be thrown out.
The Minister has clearly tried to do a workmanlike job. I do not blame him for being left with this mess to sort out, but unless the measure provides a simplified, cost-effective way of dealing with this issue that will make it easier for the police services and others that have a role in such investigations, I am afraid that we will be coming back in a year or so to try and untie this Gordian knot.

Mr. Charles Clarke: First, I think that there is a misunderstanding between my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and me. I believe that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficient to cover the

points that he makes. I am happy to continue discussing this point with him, but I think that it is dealt with in the Bill.
Secondly, I do not accept that the comments quoted by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that the Bill is technically inept, ineffective against criminals, and so on. We have made it clear from the outset that law enforcement faces a number of serious technical challenges as a result of technological innovation. It is also a simple and important fact that criminals need to communicate. That is particularly true in the case of organised crime involved in trafficking drugs and people. This power is therefore very important in contesting those criminal organisations.
Thirdly, and very importantly, interception powers are carefully targeted—that is what the Bill is all about. We are very keen, and have been throughout the Bill's passage, to work not only with the Opposition but also with industry. We do not want a breakdown of trust or confidence. However, I do not accept the comments of the Foundation for Information Policy Research quoted by the hon. Member for South Dorset. I would not have responded to this debate except to say that, but I cannot let his remarks stand on the record unchallenged. I accept the genuine feeling with which he said that we had tried to address the point, but not the views of the Foundation for Information Policy Research. We also do not accept that we can do nothing in the face of criminal organisations which work in this way—we must try and deal with the problem. I hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

Clause 12

MAINTENANCE OF INTERCEPTION CAPABILITY

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 14, line 15, at end insert
("(3A) A person shall not be liable to have an obligation imposed on him in accordance with an order under this section by reason only that he provides, or is proposing to provide, to members of the public a telecommunications service the provision of which is or, as the case may be, will be no more than—
(a) the means by which he provides a service which is not a telecommunications service; or
(b) necessarily incidental to the provision by him of a service which is not a telecommunications service.")

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 19 and 125.

Mr. Clarke: I am afraid that I need to give slightly more time to this debate, as it reflected a very serious discussion in the other place. I need to explain why these amendments are before the House.
The purpose of amendment No. 12 is to clarify those commercial and other organisations that provide a telecommunications service as a means of accessing a further service of theirs will not be subject to any order under clause 12. For example, a bank may decide that it


will offer a telecommunications service to its customers as a means of providing access to its banking service. As a result, customers can communicate with that bank. Where such a service is provided, the amendment will exclude its provider from any obligations that might otherwise be imposed under clause 12 to develop or maintain an interception capability. That measure was in response to the submissions made to us as we considered the issue. The amendment also puts outside the scope of clause 12 a telecommunications service that is necessarily incidental to a different service.
Amendment No. 15 is the outcome of our consideration of how best to ensure that the interception commissioner and his staff are able effectively to scrutinise any interception equipment designed and maintained in obedience to a notice served under clause 12. Amendment No. 15 will mean that notices served on an Internet service provider will specify what should be done to provide the commissioner with reliable and verifiable technical means of fulfilling his duties. It also applies to any orders made under clause 12.
Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 16 and consequential amendment No. 125 deal with a technical advisory hoard. Whether to set up a statutory body such as a technical advisory or approvals board has been much discussed not only in both Houses of Parliament but within Government and between Government and industry. Opinions have differed as to whether such a body was necessary, whether it should be a statutory body, whether it should have an advisory role or be an approvals board as originally suggested, what its composition should be and what its remit should cover.
We consider that the amendments, which have been accepted in another place and are before us for consideration are a sensible and reasoned compromise as a result of all the discussions and debates that this issue has engendered. I hope and believe that they will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly as they were jointly tabled by all parties in the other place.
The amendments achieve the following: first, they set up in statute a technical advisory board. Secondly, they introduce an element of flexibility as to the constitution and membership of that board. That is important, as we live in a rapidly changing environment. Thirdly, they clarify the function of the board when considering a notice that has been referred to it. Fourthly, they provide that a notice is effectively suspended pending consideration by the board. Finally, they make it clear what may happen when a reference is made.
I know that the membership of the board is an important issue. The current intention is that it will consist of representatives from industry and the agencies. There have been suggestions that membership of the board should extend beyond those of the communications industry and law enforcement. I am not entirely convinced that that would be appropriate. However, the order-making power proposed in amendment No. 16 allows for some flexibility in this area and thus allows us to look at the situation as it proceeds.
On costs and clause 13, which are dealt with by amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 relating to the drafting of clause 13, prior to these amendments, the obligation on

the Secretary of State under subsection (3) was stronger than the discretion under subsection (1). The effect of those amendments will be to introduce an obligation under subsection (1). Since both subsections now impose an obligation to pay contributions or to ensure that contributions are paid, it is right that they should now be wrapped up into a single duty.
8.30 pm
Amendment No. 18 describes the "arrangements" to ensure that contributions will be paid, since that will allow other means of payment than direct payment from the Home Office. For example, contributions to the marginal costs for telephone interception may well come from the National Criminal Intelligence Service. However, the issues for which payments can be made, which are listed in subsection (2), remain unchanged. Amendment No. 19 removes subsection (3) to make way for amendment No. 18.
Amendment No. 17 specifies that considerations of "fairness", rather than "appropriateness" as previously drafted, should be taken into account when considering the particular circumstances of the case in question. In other words, particular notice should be taken of the circumstances of the service provider on whom the obligation is being imposed. I emphasise that point given that every service provider will have to deal with different circumstances. I would expect the particular notice to be taken of those circumstances to include consideration of a wide variety of factors, such as comparisons with international practice, the nature of any additional burden and the size of the company in so far as that may be related to the ability of the company to absorb the burden.
I should like to conclude by recognising the legitimacy of the debate during the past few months about the issue of costs, even if at times the figures bandied about in the press by opponents of the Bill bore little resemblance to reality. There were silly and seriously misleading and damaging figures in the media. That was not the Opposition's responsibility, nor even that of those who commissioned the reports that were published if one judges by what they say, but the fact is that those figures distorted the debate in a seriously damaging way, whereas the debate about costs is genuine, and we tried to take it seriously at every juncture in considering the Bill, in the Chamber, in Committee and in bilateral meetings and so on.
We have endeavoured to assuage the concerns of industry at every opportunity. It is not now, and has never been, our intention to impose unnecessary burdens on industry in particular or the economy in general. We have absolutely no motive whatever to do that. We believe that the worry that the Bill will cause financial crises for particular companies is unfounded. The Government have not only no intention, but no ability under the Bill, to create such burdens.
I am confident that the assurances that we have given in Parliament, together with those amendments, should provide sufficient reassurance that we wish to work with industry at all times—not just in considering the Bill, but during its implementation—to ensure that the regime that we implement enjoys the confidence of all parties concerned. I hope that the House will agree to these Lords amendments.

Mr. Heald: I shall start with amendment No. 12, as the Minister did. Amendment No. 12 is the result of concerns


that commercial organisation have raised about telecommunications services provided to their customers that are incidental to their business, rather than being telecommunications businesses themselves. The Government rightly tabled that necessary amendment in the other place, which supported it, and we support it now.
The Minister will recall—as you may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the debates on Report—that there has been something of a battle royal about whether a technical board should exist. We thought it important to reassure business partly because of the procedures that have been adopted in the Bill, which pre-date the current Minister, but which have not been entirely satisfactory. For example, no technical specification of the equipment that could be used for interceptions was obtained at an early stage. It was only in January this year, when the Minister took the matter seriously in hand, that such a request was made to the Smith group.
I believe that many fears have been generated by the fact that business has not known what is expected of it. Therefore, we have tried to include confidence-building measures in the intercept capability provisions to make it clear to industry that it is negotiating with the authorities not from a position of entire weakness, but from one where it can have recourse to an independent body if it is dissatisfied with the measures it is asked to take. We are happy with the technical body that is proposed, although it is slightly different from the original proposal.
Internet service providers may be served with a notice that requires them to take detailed technical measures to provide an intercept capability. If they think that those measures are disproportionate or that the matter can be dealt with more easily, they can ask for the technical board's view on the matter and have an independent view taken. The Minister was very dismissive when we discussed that matter in Committee. He described such a board as an expensive
quango to give technically sensitive information to competitors.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 28 March 2000; c. 206.]

Mr. Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman may correct me if I am wrong, but I think that, at that time in Committee, he was talking about a technical approvals board. That matter exercised us strongly for the reasons stated in Committee. We are now talking about a technical advisory board, which will have much more power and effect in what he perfectly reasonably seeks to achieve.

Mr. Heald: Yes, the essential ingredient of both systems is that there should be an independent body to which such cases can be taken. As the Minister will recall, I tabled several amendments, all of which provided different solutions to that problem. One possibility was that people could go to court. Another route was a review by the technical approvals board. I had two or three other ideas, although I have forgotten them.

Mr. Clarke: They were creative.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the Minister for describing them as creative. It is welcome that, in the other place, it has been possible to find a solution that provides business with that extra reassurance. That reassurance is in the Government's interests, as much as it is in those of the industry. It will not now just be a case of the Secretary of

State introducing an order and a whole series of black boxes springing up in appropriate parts of the economy; there will be an element of independent advice and the ability to put such cases to the board to find out whether it agrees that what is proposed is right.
It has been said that no one in the industry supported the idea of having a technical board. On Report, I read out a list of bodies that supported that idea—they are shown in Hansard. It was made clear to my noble Friend Lord Cope that various bodies supported that idea, including the Internet Service Providers Association, the London Internet Exchange, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of the Electronics Industries and the Alliance of Electronic Business, and others. That shows that there are sometimes misunderstandings about such issues. However, I welcome the fact that there will be a technical board, but it is a pity that it was necessary to defeat the Government in the other place to achieve that. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but that is true.
In Committee and on Report, we said that it should be a requirement that the Government shall make a contribution to the costs of Internet service providers who have to provide such facilities. That was strongly resisted until a defeat in the other place. Again, it is good that the Minister now accepts the decision taken in the House of Lords that he shall make a fair contribution. That will build confidence in the industry, which the Government need if they are to implement the legislation effectively. It is good to talk, as the saying goes—[Interruption.] It is good to talk, and we appear to have an amendment with which we may all be content.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My declaration of interest will probably last longer than my speech, in that I advise the Telecommunications Managers Association and a company, Trevor Gilbert and Associates, which, at the periphery of its business, runs telephone exchanges. Both organisations were concerned that the Bill was originally too widely drawn and that people who work in the field peripherally or those who have large telephone exchanges as part of their normal business might be dragged in. Therefore, I welcome amendment No. 12, which sets that aside.
I rose simply to ask the Minister what he expects the Bill to cost. He was right to say that many of the figures bandied about were extraordinarily high. That does not let him off the hook, however, of how much he thinks the Bill will cost and how much he has asked the Chancellor to provide. Out of the £43 billion, has he asked for £500 million, £250 million or £5 billion? How much will the Government have to pay? We should not agree with the Lords amendment until that figure is on the record in Hansard so that we may later measure whether the Minister was correct.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I feared that I would left stranded without my cavalry when we reached the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who knows most about these matters, has had to depart, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who also served on the Committee, had not quite arrived when we began. I have been rescued by his arrival: more than one of us will now deal with the amendments and we have the benefit of some of the expertise that went into the Committee stage.
I shall make one preliminary point so that I will not have to make it later. It reflects the words of the Minister and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). The Bill's process in the Lords was a model of intelligent co-operation, and I pay tribute to the Conservative spokesman, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and his colleagues, to the ministerial team, and to my colleagues, Lord McNally and his team. The huge amount of co-operation that occurred is evident in the fact that the technical advisory board proposal came originally from Lord Cope. We worked happily with him to support it as a positive improvement and the Minister has been glad to accept it.
When the Bill left the House of Lords, I asked my colleagues what remained for us to do to make the Bill even better. I was told that there were three outstanding matters—overlapping warrants, tipping off and authorisation when the key was converted into plain text. My senior researcher, Steve Bradford, my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam, Lord McNally and I talked to the Clerks, but found, by one of the paradoxes of this place, that those are the very matters on which we were technically unable to table amendments—we can amend only what has been sent to us as Lords amendments.
That is why there are no amendments to the Lords amendments, and I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and his team have been through the same process. I make no complaint, but we are limited to considering only what has been sent back from the Lords, all of which improves the Bill.
Amendment No. 12 improves the Bill for the reasons given by the Minister, and amendments Nos. 9, 14 and others will produce a board sufficiently flexible and encouraging to give the industry the confidence that it did not have when the Bill went to the Lords. Even though there may have been some hype from industry—certainly, we all had an avalanche of correspondence from people who saw the Bill as the most draconian and awful piece of legislation—matters have been reappraised and industry has been reassured that the process can be called in so that it may give its expert opinion. The amendments are welcome and make the Bill more satisfactory to industry and commerce. We welcome it.

Mr. Maclean: All that talk about the cavalry arriving and Lord Cope reminded me of the words of a Jacobite song following the battle of Prestonpans. It seems on this occasion that the English general, Johnny Cope, was wide awake in the morning, got his drums a-beating and got down his amendments on the technical advisory board. Lord Cope seems to have been more successful than his predecessor of more than 200 years ago. One naturally supports the technical advisory board. [Interruption.] Some Labour Members, of Scottish ilk, will appreciate the importance of the battle of Prestonpans.
I recall that the technical advisory board was raised in Committee, and I am pleased that, following the normal parliamentary processes, the Government are willing to accept it. It is a good idea and everyone agrees. I make no criticism of the Government for being slightly nervous of the concept in Committee. If a Government accepted every suggestion made in Committee, goodness knows

what would be in a Bill by the time we reached the final stages of the parliamentary negotiations. All is as it should be, and the Minister has wisely accepted the amendment.
My only small quibble with the technical advisory board is with the view that it should be precisely balanced. It will not be so: the Minister is bound to ensure, using amendment No. 16—"that such other persons"—that he includes a couple of people so that the Government side and the agencies that want warrants will always have a small inbuilt majority in case the industry people become a little troublesome.
There should be no need for that. The Government are not making policy, and as the board is merely advisory the Government should not have to ensure that it is stuffed with their people in case other members come up with some crazy idea that the Government do not like. The Government can draw up terms of reference to ensure that the board does not have draconian powers that the Government will not like. They could then pick the best people to serve on the committee, and if nine out of 10, 11 or 12 turn out to work in private industry, so be it.
Of course, the Government must have an input to the board via those who seek the warrants, but the bulk of expertise lies beyond Government circles. The Government should not feel that they must have a majority on the technical advisory board, which will not stitch up the Government on a policy that they wish to avoid.
My other point relates to clause 13 and the amendments proposed to it. It concerns the cost. I accept that adding the words
a fair contribution towards the costs
is an improvement on "an appropriate contribution" but what is a fair contribution? Let us say that the Government get cast-iron audited accounts from an internet service provider to prove that it has incurred a total extra cost of £5,000 in the course of the year providing the interception service. That may not be much in the overall scheme of things, but it has been an additional cost and there is no quibble about it.
In those circumstances, if a business has had to pay out £5, 000 purely to do something that it would not normally do but that the Government have asked it to, what would be a fair contribution towards the cost? I believe that it would be £5, 000, and if a company had to spend £10, 000 doing what the Government want, the fair contribution would be £10, 000.
I appreciate that the Government have not wanted to pick a form of words that would amount to, "We will pay whatever it costs". That would create a difficulty. Some companies would do the gold-plated version and ensure that the Government picked up a heavier tab than necessary. Of course, the Government must reserve the right to say, "No, we are not going to pay every penny in case you try to rip us off. It will be a fair contribution and in most circumstances we anticipate that it may be 100 per cent."
I would like to hear a statement from the Minister tonight. No Minister wants to comment on a hypothetical scenario, such as, if I give him a bill for £5, 000, how much of it will he pay—[Interruption.] If I were an internet service provider, I would give him a bill for £5, 000.
We need to find out the Government's thinking as to what is a fair contribution in the case of a small provider who proves legitimately that the bill is not a rip off or fiddled, but that his costs were £5, 000. Roughly what percentage would the Government anticipate paying?
My final quibble or criticism is that while the amendment deals with a fair contribution towards the running costs, we are still stuck with the old wording in clause 13(3) for the capital costs. Those who are forced to put in equipment or machinery under clause 12—what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred to as the "black box"—will be under an obligation to install some equipment that may make interception easier, and will receive only such contributions as the Minister thinks appropriate towards the cost involved.
I confess that I did not read the debate on this matter in the other place. I do not know why their lordships did not table a similar amendment there. For the running costs of operating an interception system there will be a fair contribution, but the company will get only what the Minister thinks appropriate for the capital costs incurred. I want to hear the reason for that distinction from the Minister. For example, if a company proves beyond any doubt that the equipment that it has installed cost £50, 000—the bill is not fiddled, the auditors have gone through it and everyone agrees that the additional equipment that the Government have demanded cost X—what amount does he think it would be appropriate to pay?
Given those few words, I generally welcome the amendments.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I will try to deal with the questions directly in responding to an interesting discussion, which has been the subject of substantial debate in the media and elsewhere.
First, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made an important point when he said that one of the problems was that business was not clear what was expected of it throughout the process. In saying that, I do not think that he was criticising business, Government or anyone else. This is an evolving process and it is difficult to get the expectations right.
There is no doubt in my mind that a lack of clarity in that discussion has led, not unreasonably, to fears and concerns being abroad that, although not justified, are understandable. That has certainly been a major influence in persuading the Government to make the changes that we are considering, to ensure that fears and concerns about those aspects could not be inflated wrongly or unreasonably.
Perhaps I ought to place it on record that, through the codes-of-practice process and so forth—the subsequent process of implementing the Bill—we are committed to precisely what the hon. Gentleman focused on, which is giving everyone involved absolute clarity about what is expected of them and how to deal with the situation. He was correct in making that point, which was insightful. That problem has been the cause of much of the discussion around the Bill. We have worked extremely hard to deal with it in dialogue and in a variety of ways. Nevertheless, there is still a distance to go.
That is the context in which I wish to deal with the arguments about the technical board. As the hon. Gentleman said, we were sceptical about the necessity for

setting up a statutory body at the outset, but that was because there was also initial scepticism in industry about the virtue of the consultation process taking place through a statutory body. Many people said at the time that they favoured a non-statutory advisory group rather than a statutory body. We were also seriously sceptical about having technical approvals rather than a technical advisory board, owing to the different functions of the board.
Once we were clear that we were talking about an advisory process, there was a lot of discussion on the best form of that process, which was mentioned, quite reasonably, by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. We are content with the arrangement that we are agreeing this evening, but, to be frank, there are alternative formulae that might have been appropriate and with which we would also have been content. The key matter is to establish a flexible structure that can deal with the situation.
I take issue with what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said. I accept his point about the inbuilt majority, but I do not think that it will come to that in this body or any other body, for exactly the reason that he gave. The Government will rely profoundly on the private sector's knowledge of the issues. We will do that, as we will need to know. Equally, the private sector will need to know from the Government what we have in mind. The purpose of the structure that we are setting up is to establish a body of dialogue through which we shall reach clarity about such matters and take them forward. A situation in which voting takes place will not arise, and would be a disaster if it did. It would be a poor state of affairs if the Government voted one way and business, whether through a committee, board or any other structure, voted another, so we would work very hard to try to avoid that.

Mr. Heald: As the Minister will know, we insisted that there should be a balance between agencies and the involvement of the private sector in the body so that there is not an imbalance that makes it impossible for them to work together effectively as a team. Certainly, our hope is that, over a period, they will work together and understand each other's concerns, which is the key to making the arrangement work. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is important to have a fairly close balance at least.

Mr. Clarke: I completely agree, and was taking issue only with the idea that a couple of votes either way were important. We need the kind of co-operation described by the hon. Gentleman, and are committed to it. As I have said in Committee and on the Floor of the House, a general criticism that I would make of Government, both Conservative and Labour—although we are working to improve the situation, given the appalling inheritance that we had to deal with—concerns the difficulty of getting proper partnership in these areas. In many areas, I still feel that we do not have a proper dialogue between the Government and industry. We welcome the new structure, as it will help that process, and I believe that it will work positively and effectively
I come to the issue of money and costs, and shall deal first with the points made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. Clause 14(2)(b), which deals with running costs, and clause 14(2)(c), which deals with


capital, set out the fact that the Bill's requirement for fairness applies to both capital and running costs. The right hon. Gentleman would be right in what he said if the fairness did not apply to both, but the intention behind the provision's wording is that it does.
The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about criteria. I hope that we can offer him some reassurance, as the same criteria will be applied to all service providers, regardless of the position, in considering what costs should be paid. The first criterion is the question of whether a new requirement is being imposed on the service provider and the second is the significance of the cost in relation to the overall size and turnover of the company. Those are both serious considerations. For example, many people have said a requirement of some kind could be extremely damaging for a small Internet service provider that is in the process of starting up. We would not impose such burdens on them, so it is important to look at the costs in relation to the company's overall size and turnover. The code of practice that sets out the way in which we will do that will provide the reassurance sought by the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made a financial point and put forward some figures. Throughout, we have estimated that costs to those communication service providers who are not covered at present, but who will be covered under the Bill will not exceed £20 million over three years. That estimate was published in the regulatory impact statement when the Bill was first introduced in the House. We stand by that estimate, and none of the research since has caused us to alter our view. We are of course aware that alternative estimates have been made and we certainly do not claim a monopoly of wisdom on this complicated and different area. When the United States implemented such measures, albeit of a different character, great claims were made about the amount of money that would be needed. In practice, however, much less was needed to deal with the situation.
Our best estimate, therefore, is the one that we made in the regulatory impact assessment. As with all these things, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been positive in dealing with this matter because he shares our concern to ensure that nothing that we do will damage our position.
I now realise that I made a mistake in responding to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I was referring to what will be clause 14 once the Bill is amended; it is clause 13 in the Bill before the House. I apologise for misleading him through my lack of numeracy. Thirteen may be unlucky for some.

Mr. Maclean: I apologise to the Minister for being obtuse earlier by not studying the amendment properly. If subsection (3) of the clause—whatever its number—is deleted, I assume that subsection 2(c) deals with the capital costs. I see nodding coming from those seated to the Minister's left. My point was wrong: the word "fair" applies to capital and to running costs, in which case I am content.

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. As he said, subsection (2)(c) deals with capital. I do not

criticise him for being wrong on this matter, as this is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation that I have seen. Moreover, he does not have the advantage that I have of a dedicated Bill team, who have tried throughout the Bill to serve all parts of Parliament in a positive way.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 19 agreed to, some with special entry.

Clause 14

GENERAL SAFEGUARDS

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 16, line 15, leave out ("Chapter") and insert ("Part").

9 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 156, 157 and 162.

Jane Kennedy: I am conscious that we are making good progress, and I hope that hon. Members welcome these amendments.
Amendment No. 20 recognises that the commissioner is responsible for the oversight of communications data as well as interception material. Amendment No. 21 deals with the question of intercept material that is lost or stolen. It is fairly straightforward. Amendment No. 156 is a technical amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
I should like to say one or two words about amendments Nos. 22, 157 and 162, which deal with some of the exceptions to the prohibition in clause 16 and—

Mr. Heald: I apologise to the hon. Lady for interrupting her flow. Surely amendment No. 21 deals with the secure storage of intercepted material, not theft. It says that the
arrangements for the time being in force…for securing that the requirements of subsection (2) are satisfied…must include such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers necessary for securing that every copy of the material or data that is made is stored…in a secure manner.

Jane Kennedy: That is right. I said that amendment No. 21 deals with the question of intercept material that is lost or stolen, and the risk that such material may be outside the scope of clause 14(2). Although the storage and handling of intercepted material already involves the highest levels of physical, technical and personnel security, I hope that an explicit requirement to store intercepted material and data securely will reassure those who have been concerned that it might otherwise not be so stored. I am sorry if, by trying to make progress too swiftly, I obscured that.

Mr. Beith: The amendment was tabled in response to representations made by my noble Friends in the other place, who will be pleased that it meets that requirement.

Jane Kennedy: Let me move swiftly on while we are all in agreement.
Amendments Nos. 22, 157 and 162 deal with some of the exceptions to the prohibition in clause 16 and enable intercept material to be considered by the court in cases before the proscribed organisations appeal commission and the special immigration appeals commission, and in any proceedings arising out of proceedings before those commissions.
In order to ensure that, in those special circumstances, the commission can in each case consider any intercept material which may be relevant, the rules governing their procedure have been devised in such a way as to ensure that sensitive material is protected. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of amendment No. 22 reflect that aim, ensuring that intercept material is not disclosed to the appellant himself, or to anyone who represents him. However, there is provision for a special advocate—we have discussed these—to represent the interests of the appellant in any parts of a hearing from which he is excluded.
I hope that the amendments will find favour with the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 25

CONDUCT TO WHICH PART II APPLIES

Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 27, line 11, leave out ("For the purposes of this Part surveillance is directed") and insert
("Subject to subsection (5A), surveillance is directed for the purposes of this Part")

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 37 and 50.

Mr. Clarke: Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 37 and 50 remove from the intrusive surveillance provisions covert surveillance carried out by television licence evasion detector equipment. One of the benefits of the legislation is that, as we have gradually sought to apply the human rights requirements to every act of surveillance undertaken by public authorities in Britain, we have established more clarity about what has been happening and about what, therefore, needs to be reported and regulated in a proper way. That is reflected in the Lords amendments that we will come to later when we consider the schedule that we have published in response to the suasions of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). One such activity is the BBC's television licence evasion detector equipment, and we have thought it right to amend the Bill to deal with that.
A police officer carrying out covert surveillance from an observation post sited on residential premises of a third party of a target outside those premises would be caught by the intrusive surveillance provision. That was not intended, so amendments Nos. 35 and 36 limit the category of intrusive surveillance to where a surveillance device is on residential premises or in a private vehicle and is providing information on what is taking place in those premises or in that vehicle, or, where a device is not on the premises, but is providing, in relation to anything taking place on the premises or in the vehicle, information of the same quality

or detail as might be expected from a device on the premises or in the vehicle, or where an individual is present on the premises or in the vehicle under surveillance. That is the meaning of and reason for the amendments and I hope that the House will support them.

Mr. Heald: We support the amendments. I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Lucas, who brought to the attention of the Minister in the other place the unintended consequence of the Bill as it relates to intrusive surveillance, where a police officer using residential premises as an observation post to carry out covert surveillance would have been caught by the definition of intrusive surveillance. The fact that amendments Nos. 35 and 36 deal with that is welcome.

Mr. Maclean: It makes sense to have the amendments and remove the BBC detector vans from the provisions for the time being. So long as we have, in the new millennium, a grubby system whereby people crawl around the countryside in vans trying to find out whether criminals are using a television without a licence, it is probably sensible that we should have these amendments to remove that unnecessary work from this important Bill. I look forward to the time when a Minister from whatever party will be able to come to the Dispatch Box and say that we no longer need the provision because we have a different way in which to fund media organisations, other than requiring people to crawl around in detector vans to see if we are misbehaving by illegally watching a television.

Mr. Clarke: Out of interest, what is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal? Does it involve a spending commitment for the Opposition?

Mr. Maclean: I could not go down that route without incurring your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The proposal would not cost the Government money; it would save them money. However, that is another debate for another time. I would trust the free market to provide all the television services that we need.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments 34 to 39 agreed to.

Clause 29

PERSONS ENTITLED TO GRANT AUTHORISATIONS UNDER SCHEDULES 27 AND 28

Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 31, line 43, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) A public authority is a relevant public authority for the purposes of this section—
(a) in relation to section 27 if it is specified in Part I or II of Schedule (Relevant public authorities); and
(b) in relation to section 28 if it is specified in Part I of that Schedule.

(4A) An order under this section may amend Schedule (Relevant public authorities) by—
(a) adding a public authority to Part I or II of that Schedule;
(b) removing a public authority from that Schedule;
(c) moving a public authority from one Part of that Schedule to the other;
(d) making any change consequential on any change in the name of a public authority specified in that Schedule.

(4B) Without prejudice to section (Orders under s. 29 for Northern Ireland), the power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State.

(4C) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (4A) containing any provision for—
(a) adding any public authority to Part I or II of that Schedule, or
(b) moving any public authority from Part II to Part I of that Schedule,
unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.")

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 41, 42, 130 and 142.

Mr. Clarke: I shall comment on the amendments briefly. The serious matter with which they deal was debated at length in Committee, on Report and in the other place. I was sympathetic to the view expressed in this House during our earlier discussions on the Bill: the public authorities empowered to authorise the use of directed surveillance and the use or conduct of covert sources should be set out in a schedule to the Bill. I believed that it was important for public debate that we had as much information as possible. A central record had never been drawn up or held of Departments and other public bodies that used those covert techniques, and it has taken us some time to devise a definitive list. The provision of such information is an important development in government in Britain.
I make no criticism of previous Governments, Conservative or Labour. However, the fact that we did not know properly about those matters is a serious reflection on the state of affairs. On behalf of my officials, I emphasise it has not been easy to establish the precise circumstances across government. They have done a good, professional job. However, as they would be the first to say, even now we may not yet understand everything that has taken place. The schedule that we are considering has changed considerably from the list that I circulated in Committee. When considering that list, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) entertained us with his comments on ice cream salespeople and various other issues of great substance. Since then, we have discovered that a greater number of public authorities than we had first thought use part II powers, and that a much greater number of public authorities use covert sources.
We are still learning about public authorities whose activities have not previously come to our attention. That learning process is likely to continue for some time in future. I have no doubt that it will be necessary to introduce orders that add further public authorities to the schedule as a result of case law developed from judgments on the definition of a public authority once the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force in October. Any additions to the schedule or moves of authorities from part II to part I of the schedule will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The House will therefore be able to discuss ice cream salespeople in great detail, as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border would like.

Mr. Heald: When the matter was discussed in the other place on 28 June, my noble Friend Lord Lucas asked

whether the Department for Education and Employment should be on the list because of university grant fraud which had apparently occurred. It was suggested that surveillance was useful in tackling that.

Mr. Clarke: I shall respond to that point when I wind up. I want to check so that I can give the hon. Gentleman an accurate reply. Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 tidy up the provisions that relate to specific activities in Northern Ireland. They have now become sufficiently substantial to merit a separate clause. We are considering important issues, which graphically illustrate the development of law as we move forward. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Heald: To me, these will always be the Maclean amendments because my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) discovered that rather than two or three authorities being involved, the list ran to a page and a half. It is right that they should be in the Bill and I welcome the fact that Departments are considering whether all relevant public authorities are listed. It is better to have a proper list. I understand that that issue has also been raised by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the other place, which also thought that the measure should be set out as it now is. We welcome that initiative. I could make a number of other minor points, but the Minister covered them. However, I should be grateful to know the position on grant fraud. Apparently, people overseas have undertaken enterprising frauds involving university grants and funding for education in this country. Clearly the types of surveillance that we are discussing might be useful.

Mr. Beith: I was one of those who raised the issue in Committee. My favourite example is the Government Whips' Office, which I strongly suspect of using directed surveillance—for example, to discover whether Labour Members used their constituency weeks or disappeared to some other place. Perhaps we should put these measures in context. We must recognise that they will draw into regulation large areas of activity that were not previously the subject of regulation and accountability. The Bill has received a bad press as being fundamentally oppressive and extending the power of the Government, but on both sides of the Committee it was felt that the initial stab at these measures was unsatisfactory and that we ought to declare, so far as is known, what bodies use directed surveillance. Those bodies ought to be covered.
In Committee, the Minister gave an assurance that he would seek to achieve that. It has been achieved and we are grateful to him and his officials. However, I accept that other bodies may need to be added to the list, using the affirmative resolution procedure. Unlike other provisions, these measures will not create the legitimate fear that bodies will take up such activities in a cavalier fashion. Surveillance to check that fraud is not taking place is a commonplace in all sorts of organisations—private business, for example—as it is sometimes necessary to check that taxpayers' money or customers' money is not being abused. We must realise that there is a wider area to regulate and I welcome the fact that previous amendments have ensured that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used to add bodies to the list. Taking those two together, a welcome improvement has been


made to the scope of the Bill. I appreciate that the Government have listened to representations from all sides.

Mr. Maclean: I am pleased to speak for a few moments to the Maclean new schedule. I am not proud, but, for the relevant fee and after making an appropriate declaration in the Register of Members' Interests—just as we are happy to save private Members' Bills on various Fridays despite vicious Government attempts to vote them down—I should be happy to assist the Government should they wish to privatise some aspect of parliamentary drafting. The new schedule—amendment No. 142—is remarkable in many ways because the need for it came to light on a Thursday morning. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Committee business starts at a ridiculously early hour on Thursday mornings—indeed, before most Members have breakfasted and are fully alert as to a Bill's consequences. Fortuitously, we spotted a possibility in clause 27.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Is the right hon. Gentleman converted to the merits of Thursday morning sittings?

Mr. Maclean: Absolutely not. That was the only Thursday morning on which I was alert. I do not know on how many Thursdays I, and perhaps Labour Back Benchers and other colleagues, were not fully alert at 10.30 am. Had we considered the Bill in Committee at a proper time, another dozen new schedules could have been before the House tonight.
We had some fun over the ice cream salesmen, but the matter came to light—I am not being unkind—when the Minister, following his brief, quickly discussed clause 27, referring to those who may need intercepting on grounds of national security, detecting serious crime or the economic well-being of the nation. There was also a curious reference to protecting public health. It seems odd to include that in a clause that refers to NCIS, MI5 and MI6.
I asked the Minister to give an assurance that the sandwich gestapo of the NHS would not be involved. His answer alerted the whole Committee to the fact that other bodies could be involved as well as NCIS. The Minister produced a helpful although frightening list of organisations that have these powers. He is right and is to be congratulated on being the first to draw up such a comprehensive list. I am not suggesting that the Government are granting new powers to all those funny bodies to direct covert surveillance, because they had such powers in the past, and the Minister is trying to pull them together.
I have one little concern, however. The Minister's list broke down the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and the other organisations with those powers into their different parts. We found it slightly amusing that MAFF' s egg inspectorate had those powers but not the banana directorate. If I may mix my fruit metaphors, the banana directorate is the plum posting in MAFF, because its officials have to go to exciting parts of the world to decide on the quota of bananas that Britain receives each year from those countries. I suspect that there are quite a few rackets, not among officials of course, but in the operation of the banana industry throughout the world. That directorate may need those powers of surveillance, but it is not on the list.
The regulations merely stipulate the Government Department: for instance, they just refer to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and do not say which bits will have those powers. The egg inspectorate, the intervention board for agricultural produce and the sheep inspectorate, which checks on sheep numbers for the European Union, will presumably have those powers. I suspect that the wine intervention board will also need such powers. That is the second best job in MAFF. It is a burden that officials carry with equanimity, but a certain number of them are sent each year on a master of wine course and have the difficult task at certain times of the year of going round wine shops and confiscating two bottles of wine to ensure that it is labelled correctly in accordance with EU regulations. They discharge that duty every December. One bottle is sent for inspection, and the other is kept a few days for evidence. It would be wasteful to destroy it, so it comes in handy for other purposes, such as Christmas parties. We presume that that organisation would also have these powers.
I do not want to labour the point and try the House's patience, but I should like the Minister to tell us whether, if it is not appropriate to put in the schedule the different subsections of each Department—the various bits of MAFF and the Department of Health that will have these powers, such as the sandwich gestapo unit, so as to ensure that the egg in the sandwiches is not more than five degrees centigrade—he will publish the list annually or give an undertaking that, if asked a parliamentary question, he will list the units of each Department.
We do not want to know details about NCIS, the National Crime Squad and the Serious Fraud Office, but if MAFF, the Home Office and the Department of Social Security are listed as bodies that can direct surveillance, the Minister must answer parliamentary questions on the issue or publish each year a list of the separate divisions in each of those Departments that are using the powers. He cannot put that in the regulations, because the information may change weekly or monthly. I accept his word that the list in the schedule will have to change as more bodies come to light or as Departments change their names. I hope that the Minister will assure me that the Maclean schedule is not the end of the matter, and that he will publish annually a list of the subsections within Departments.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I can pretend to none of the expertise demonstrated by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in the consumption of wine, whisky, bananas, eggs and various other commodities about which he clearly understands far more than I ever could. I am grateful for what he has said, however, because it allows me to clarify the position. The Department for Education and Employment was asked whether it wished to be listed in the schedule, but it did not, as it does not use covert techniques, even for the services that are mentioned. If the Department wanted lawful cover for such covert techniques, they would have to be specified in the Bill: that would be a policy matter that the Department would have to address directly. I hope that one of the benefits of the discussion will be the need for Departments and agencies to consider whether they really need the techniques involved. It will be an interesting discussion. I think that people have drifted into the sphere of techniques which, although they may be critically important in some contexts, may be less important in others.
The intervention board is listed separately in the schedule. We listed only the public authority in the schedule because it, rather than its constituent parts, is the statutory body. However, we intend to narrow the range of agencies within a public authority that can authorise activity under part II. That will be achieved through the order for which clause 29 provides. The order will specify precisely the individuals holding certain offices, ranks or positions in the relevant public authority who can authorise such activity. For example, it might say that a senior immigration officer in the Home Office could authorise the conduct or use of a covert source. I think that that power to authorise covert activity will be of the greatest public interest.
We have no interest in hiding these matters. Indeed, we have worked to bring them into the open. I jib rather at the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in Committee that I was trying to skip over the point, for that was certainly not my intention. I felt, and still feel, that not just the Committee and the House but the country should have a chance to see the matter in the round. We will, of course, be ready to answer parliamentary questions as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but we intend to identify the individuals concerned directly. I hope that that gives him some reassurance.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 51 agreed to.

Clause 46

NOTICES REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF KEY

Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 50, line 10, leave out ("requirement to disclose the key") and insert
("disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information")

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 76, 79 to 85, 102, 105, 107, 109, 110 and 154.

Mr. Clarke: As hon. Members know, part III has continued to be a subject of great debate both in another place and more generally. We have proposed a number of significant changes, in response to representations from and discussions with industry and other interested parties. We have also had constructive discussions with the Opposition in the other place.
I do not want to go into all the details of this substantial issue. The thrust of what we seek to do is this: we want to reassure all concerned that, in cases in which appropriate authorisation has been established under the Bill for reasons given in it, we seek to obtain a copy of the plain text—that is, the actual message that is exchanged, rather than the key. The amendment is designed to provide in the Bill the reassurance that I have given orally, in Committee and here, that we do not seek keys for a general purpose, that we do not seek a back-door route for mandatory key escrow, and that what we want is the plain text.
I am aware that Members on both sides of the House—in Committee, here, in the other place—and those outside it—have been worried about that, and have wanted

reassurance in the Bill that we seek plain text. That is the main point of the amendments. We believe that the requirement is proportionate to what is sought. The amendments propose to recast part III in terms of our preference for plain text rather than keys, and to leave it to the recipient of a notice to decide how to comply with a disclosure requirement.
9.30 pm
As I say, the specific amendments are complicated and detailed. I shall not go through the detail further now, although I will be happy to respond as appropriate to points that are made in the debate, but the reassurance that I offer to the House and to all who are watching our proceedings in the industry is that it is our desire lawfully to get access to communications as appropriately authorised. It is not our desire to behave in a way that could make the communication systems of corporations vulnerable, or to give a power to demand a key that could be used irresponsibly to damage the security of organisations.
Contrary to what may have been thought—not in the House, where people have understood the issue but more generally—the representations that we have received have not come only from that industry, the internet service providers and so on. They have been from investment bankers and the financial community, on which the economic health of the nation depends. They have been concerned that inadvertently, by clumsiness or some other means, the Government might undermine their confidentiality requirements, which are a precondition for the operation of their businesses.
We are keen to reassure. We have done so verbally, and we think that, through the amendments, we have done so in the Bill. For those reasons, I commend the string of amendments to the House.

Mr. Heald: Before turning to the issue of keys in general terms, may I deal with Lords amendments Nos. 58 and 59? One of the points that I and others made regularly in Committee was that there was a danger, which had been highlighted by some in industry, that criminals would serve completely bogus notices on financial institutions and other companies seeking keys, or intelligible information on communications that they had obtained—protected information—and that the companies would find it difficult to verify the genuineness of the documents.
Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 are important because they require that the office, rank or position of the person who granted permission for the giving of a notice under schedule 1 be on the face of the notice. That gives extra reassurance to those who have received notices that they are genuine. Such measures are welcome. I know that the codes of practice, when they are before the House, will deal with those issues to a considerable extent, but I am glad that that theme, which has run throughout our deliberations, has been recognised in that way.
I turn to the general proposition about keys and the obligation to provide plain text. The original drafting of the Bill carries some of the blame. It was drafted on the basis that the notice would be to provide a key—that the requirement was for the key—so I do not think that we can blame those outside this place for thinking, "Look. It is all about the Government or authorities obtaining keys."
Of course, the Minister has given assurances at various times during our proceedings that that is not the case, but the way in which the measure was originally drafted was rather odd—I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees. I welcome the fact that that whole section of the Bill has been turned the right way round, so that the requirement is for the plain text and the key is provided only in special circumstances. Those changes are welcome.
We still have a certain concern that the provision of the key is on the say-so of the chief constable. As the Minister will know, in the other place we fought hard for that approval to be given by the Home Secretary. We feel that it should be the person who is giving the assurances—the Home Secretary—who makes those decisions, rather than the chief constable.
Giving up the key is seen as quite a high security risk by financial institutions, companies, banks and the like. After all, many of them have international agreements not to disclose the key in any circumstances. They have sophisticated computer equipment that tries to avoid the same key existing for long. One can understand their reticence. We therefore proposed in the other place—where we lost the vote by one—that the Home Secretary should make those decisions.
I accept that since that defeat, the Government have held further discussions with all the parties and come up with the solution that the commissioner will immediately be notified that the chief constable has given approval, and that the commissioner will be able to make special reports to the Prime Minister about such instances at any time rather than only annually. However, although we are pleased about the extra protections, we shall be watching how the provision operates in practice. We still have that slight reservation about whether there should not be approval at a higher level.
As for the offence itself, the Minister will recall that one of the points made in the Opposition's reasoned amendment on Third Reading was that the offence created in clause 49 was repugnant to justice. Creating an offence in which a person must prove his or her innocence is not in line with what is often called the golden thread of British justice. We were strongly opposed to the creation of such an offence. We said that the offence should contain an intent element, and that it was not satisfactory to establish defences whereby people had to prove their innocence.
We very much welcome the fact that in the other place, it has been possible to add a mental element to the offence—the word "knowingly"—and that the defence has been amended so that it is no longer necessary to prove one's innocence on a balance of probability. It will be enough to raise the issue, which the prosecution will have to disprove.
Therefore, looking at the issue in the round, we accept that the original bad drafting caused considerable concern to industry, and not—as the Minister said—only to internet service providers. We think that recasting and rewriting part III has moved the Bill very much in the right direction, and that it is much improved. Nevertheless, I think that it is also possible to lay the charge of, "new Labour, new clause". The first 22 pages of amendments have certainly transformed the Bill from a rather ugly beast into something that may eventually even attain beauty. [Interruption.]

Mr. Beith: I shall keep off the subject of beauty, in the light of the Minister's sotto voce comments about his own

appearance. There is no doubt that their lordships have rewritten part III—it is a substantial, almost total rewrite—or that it was necessary to do so not least to allay the considerable fears that had arisen in industry. I think that sometimes, in some of the press reports, those fears were not accompanied by any recognition of the purpose of the provisions. In an age in which electronic communications will be the norm, it would be a very serious omission to have no means of intercepting and reading encrypted communications between dangerous criminals embarking on a very serious crime, or between people attempting to threaten the lives of the people of this country.
Such powers are of course very dangerous, and therefore have to be the subject of very strict regulation. Liberal Democrat Members have said at various points in the Bill's passage that we would prefer a judicial basis for that type of approval in the various spheres in which it will operate, rather than the basis provided in part III and elsewhere in the Bill. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are circumstances in which such powers have to be used. It was wrong that the Government were sometimes characterised as engaged in a wholly unjustified snooping exercise, intent on destroying all electronic commerce in the process.
The evolution from our original consideration of the Electronic Communications Act 2000, in which these provisions were first encapsulated, to the closing stages of our consideration of the rewritten version of this Bill, has been long and remarkable. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, the overall cast of the Bill's provisions has been reversed, so that the intention is much clearer. I welcome those changes. I also welcome the Government's willingness to accept the advice that they received about how those changes could be made and the way in which that process was conducted.
It would be foolish to imagine that even now, we have got it all right. Clearly, lawyers will find scope to explore the provision pretty intensively, and we may have to return to some aspects of it. Some people might make quite a bit of money out of doing so, but we must ensure that serious threats to the physical safety of the people of this country, whether from criminals, hostile powers or terrorists, can be countered by the judicious and regulated use of such powers. We must do so in a way that does not disrupt an industry that has great earning power for the country and potential for the future. I hope that that has been achieved. If it has not been achieved fully, we might have to return to some of the details another time.

Mr. Maclean: There is no doubt that, with this Bill as with others, there will be lawyers who will try to find loopholes. We must hope that there are sufficient men and women of principle left to plug those loopholes.
The Government's mistaken drafting perhaps made it inevitable that some in industry and financial institutions would overstate their case and panic at the thought of having to release their keys. The Government's mistake was probably inevitable because of the amount of legislation being pushed through in such a short time, and the burdens on parliamentary draftsmen. Part III was drafted the wrong way round. The Government had a fetish with and concentration on getting the keys—why? They wanted the keys to get the information. Sensibly,


the provisions have been redrafted to emphasise getting the information, which is what the Government always wanted. That will satisfy many in the industry.
Concern was inevitable because all movement in the industry has been towards encryption and keys. All those concerned with developing the internet, internet banking and so on, are excited by secure systems into which no one can hack. Encryption and double encryption is the trend in America, then along came the British Government to say, "Ah, but we want you to hand over the keys." I grant that such a perception was unfair. The Minister did his best in Committee to explain that the Government were really after plain text, for which they needed such powers.
Now, late in the day, but properly in accordance with our parliamentary procedures, we have the right drafting. That will help the Minister to reassure industry about the Government's intentions. He can embark on a propaganda drive with our financial institutions and the computer-internet world, with all its whiz-kids, peeks and other things—whatever they are called—who run the industry. More and more they are the driving force behind our economy. They are not just anoraks; they are incredibly sensible and powerful, and a good driving force.
The Minister now needs to take to such people the message that we have struck the right balance and that their keys are safe. The Government are no longer giving the impression that they want the encrypted keys to everyone's e-mail and internet systems. Instead, the emphasis is on plain text. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that, with the help of the Lords, and producing a better Bill.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I genuinely thank the right hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for emphasising in this brief debate the points about drafting. I accept that the drafting has been fundamentally and positively changed, for the reasons stated by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, in order to make it clear that it is the information, rather than the key, that we are after. That is important in reassuring people.
I am grateful to all three right hon. and hon. Members—particularly the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—for emphasising the purposes of the Bill as well. We need the information in the areas described for very good and important public interest reasons. We are contesting very highly effective crime, which may now be organised worldwide. That is part of globalisation. We see the impact of such crime—trafficking in drugs and in people, paedophilia and so on—in so many areas of our lives, and we must maximise our defences against it. It is a requirement in defending the liberties of our citizens that we do so.
We know that, as technology develops, we will take a hit and find it difficult to be as effective in tackling such crime. We have a duty to do what we can to protect our citizens from such an organised international threat.
I sense that some of the debate—not today's, but generally—has missed that key purpose of the Bill, so I am genuinely grateful to the three right hon. and hon. Gentlemen for re-emphasising that. No one who has

participated in the debate outside has cavilled at the need for law enforcement, or the need to address the issues with which the Bill deals. There have been arguments about how that should be done, but it is fair to say that the whole industry acknowledges its importance to the welfare both of society and of the industry itself.
If financial institutions are penetrated by money launderers of various descriptions, that will undermine those institutions. If internet companies are undermined by paedophiles using their organisation to get material to others who use it, that undermines the future prospects of the industry. That is the fundamental argument that should, to a greater extent than it has, inform the debate on the future relationship between the industry and the Government. We have a strong mutual interest in ensuring that the Bill works properly. The Government recognise that, and I am grateful for the acknowledgement that the redrafting of the first part of part III, with its emphasis on plain text and information rather than keys, provides the required assurance.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is the one who raised the issue of plain text and keys. The changes in amendments Nos. 52, 54 to 57, 64, 66 to 68 and 76 are positive and all relate to the redrafting on which speakers have, rightly, focused. He was right also to focus on amendments Nos. 58 to 62, which provide further stipulations, in addition to those set out in clause 46(4), about the form that a disclosure notice must take. They stipulate, for example, that a notice must contain details of the person who gave permission for it to be served, and that the time set for complying with the notice must be reasonable in the circumstances.
The initial draft code of practice that we have published for part III sets out our first stab at drawing up a disclosure notice. The main purpose of the notice is to provide certainty about what everyone is being asked to do, and I shall be interested in the industry's response to our draft. It is possible that we shall be able to improve it, so that it better achieves that purpose, although the amendments have already moved us closer to that goal.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned authorisation, which is covered in amendments Nos. 69 and 71. Amendment No. 69 raises the authorisation level for access to keys to chief officer or its equivalent, which represents a significant increase. Amendment No. 71 provides additional safeguards by requiring that any directions for the disclosure of keys be notified to either the intelligence services commissioner or the chief surveillance commissioner, as appropriate, with the possibility of onward referral remaining open. Taken together, the two amendments should provide all the assurance needed.
I am grateful for the positive remarks made in the debate. I take seriously the points made about propaganda by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who is a past master of propaganda, as evidenced by his promotion of Scotland and the drinks industry. After the Bill receives Royal Assent, we shall work with the industry—and the Opposition, if they are willing—to promote it both in this country and internationally. Given the comments made in the overseas media, we must explain clearly what the Bill is and is not, and why we do not believe it poses a threat to e-commerce in Britain; on the contrary, it will help to achieve the Government's aim of a strong and secure e-commerce economy, to which we are all committed.
Propaganda is needed, and I hope that the whole House will help to promote the interests of this country's businesses when the time comes. In the meantime, I have no hesitation in commending the Lords amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 76 agreed to.

Clause 50

TIPPING-OFF

Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 54, line 19, leave out from first ("the") to ("or") in line 20 and insert ("Intelligence Services Commissioner").

Jane Kennedy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 78, 86 to 97, 99 to 101, 112 to 114, 116 to 119, 134, 135, 137, 146, 147, 150, 151, 153, 160, 161 and 163.

Jane Kennedy: It is appropriate that I give due credit to Opposition Members, who raised the issue of the number of commissioners on Second Reading and pursued it in Committee. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 and related amendments respond directly to those concerns.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will remember that in Committee we discovered that the security service commissioner and the intelligence services commissioner were in practice roles performed by the same person. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 formalise that arrangement by having one commissioner carrying out both functions, together with the additional functions required of him under the Bill. The streamlining of the number of commissioners has required a slight change to the title of the Bill, and I refer the House to amendment No. 163.
Amendments Nos. 78, 97, 101, 114, 117, 134 and 153 result from the earlier decision to remove from the Bill, when the provision was last before the House, the post of a covert investigations commissioner. The role of that commissioner was amalgamated with that of the chief surveillance commissioner under the Police Act 1997. However, in making these changes, we set the chief surveillance commissioner a wide-ranging and onerous task. We must therefore provide the commissioner with further assistance to ensure that he is able to be effective. We believe that he cannot act alone and we anticipate that he will need some form of inspectorate to assist him.
We think also that it is important that he should be provided with some judicial support for this function. The amendments will achieve that by allowing the Prime Minister, after consultation with the chief surveillance commissioner, to appoint serving or former circuit or Crown court judges to assist in the monitoring process. By this means, we will ensure independent judicial scrutiny of authorisations by all public authorities.
Amendment No. 86 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to provide the interception of communications commissioner with such technical facilities and staffs as are sufficient to enable him properly to carry out his functions. Amendment No. 87 is designed to remove any

doubt that there may previously have been that the interception of communications commissioner may report at any time to the Prime Minister on any matter relating to his functions, as he thinks fit.
Having made such good progress in streamlining the numbers of commissioners, it is somewhat ruefully that I turn to amendments Nos. 90, 93, 100, 113 and 119, where we introduce a new commissioner. I seek to reassure the House that the new commissioner has a role that is clearly circumscribed in three different ways. First, it is limited to Northern Ireland. Secondly, it is limited to actions under part II of the Bill—to directed surveillance and covert sources. Finally, the role of this commissioner is limited to the actions of public authorities, the responsibility for which is transferred to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I commend the amendments to the House. I am sure that they will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.

Mr. Heald: I thank the Minister for her generous comments. It is true that the amendments relate to a theme that we have pursued throughout our consideration of the Bill. That began with, in effect, its first outing, which was Second Reading in this place. We are pleased with the progress that has been made. We had hoped originally for a uniform commissioner, but we are satisfied with the Minister's explanations. We are getting what amounts to a unified secretariat. There has been much streamlining, and that is most welcome.
We always imagined that there would have to be separate arrangements for Northern Ireland. We do not really count that commissioner, if the hon. Lady will accept that. We think that good progress has been made and we are pleased with the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

PETITIONS

Education Funding (Cambridgeshire)

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of 1, 300 constituents in Cambridgeshire. The petition was organised by the Fair Funding group, which has supported the campaign to get a fairer settlement for education funding for Cambridgeshire.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Cambridge and the county of Cambridgeshire opposes the current Standard Spending Assessment scheme as a method for allocating the funding to our nation's schools.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement an interim arrangement with immediate effect, which will provide for a fairer allocation to those counties at the bottom of the league for SSA per pupil.
And the petitioners remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Broadcasting Licences (Religious Bodies)

Mr. David Lidington: I wish to present a petition signed by more than 2, 000 people, the great majority of whom are constituents of mine in Aylesbury and the surrounding area. The petition calls on the Government to introduce legislation to amend the law, which at present discriminates against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies.
The petition states:
That radio and television are now the most important means of communicating ideas and that religious bodies are substantially disadvantaged in access to and involvement in radio and television broadcasting by legislation and by rules and codes of guidance issued by the broadcasting regulatory authorities.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their rules and codes of guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.
I simply add that the petitioners have my full support.

To lie upon the Table.

BAE (Redundancies)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am pleased that we have time to discuss the important matter of people being made redundant at British Aerospace sites throughout the country. We also have the opportunity to consider what is going on in BAE, as we hear many rumours. The title of the debate is slightly misleading. The purpose of the debate is to discuss the future of employees at BAE Systems in the light of recent redundancies.
I warmly welcome the Government's announcement this week of support for BAE with the launch aid for the A3XX, the choice of A400M heavy lift aircraft and the accompanying contracts. Air France and Emirates Airlines have also supported the A3XX, and we know that there are another nine orders on the books. There are now 17 firm orders for A3XX. We can thank the Government for that. I am sorry that no Opposition Members are present for the debate. The Opposition seems to have been using the press to suggest that the Government is at fault and that the Labour party takes no interest in the industry. I want to put the record straight. The Labour party is interested in these matters, and the Government is fully committed to aerospace and will continue to support it in the future. I am grateful for the Meteor and Eurofighter projects, which are very important.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Hoyle: The Government deserve congratulation for their support of the contracts given for the A3XX, the A400M heavy-lift aircraft, and the Eurofighter. The Meteor project safeguarded 1,200 jobs. When it is up and running, the A400M project will involve 10,000 jobs, 3,400 of them at BAE Systems. A total of 22,000 jobs are involved in the A3XX project, 8,000 of them at BAE Systems. These are firm orders and firm contracts for the future. More orders are expected, and that is good news. The A3XX will be a super aircraft, and everyone involved deserves our congratulations.
I want to discuss aerospace manufacturing sites in the Northwest. The plant at Broughton will make the wings for the A3XX. The Lostock facility will have the Meteor project. The sites at Warton and Salmesbury will also benefit from the orders, as will the Royal Ordnance facility at Chorley.
It is therefore disappointing to learn that 3, 800 people—or 3.5 per cent. of the work force—will be made redundant. A total of 750 jobs will go at Warton and Salmesbury. Redundancies will also occur in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister. That is not good news. Many people in Chorley and South Ribble will suffer from the shake-out that is happening in the aerospace industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and I will be involved with them.
A strong rumour among those in the industry who lobbied Parliament recently was that work would be contracted out abroad, to firms in Poland and elsewhere.


Is that true? I understand that the amount of work involved would be about 1.5 per cent. of the total, but I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that. Orders arising out of the work sent to Poland could benefit the Northwest, but the transfer of work could be a problem, and it needs to be addressed. Contracting out work abroad is an attempt to reduce production costs. I understand the need for that, but British jobs are important to the House and should not be put at risk.
Government announcements earlier this year were regarded as a boost for British manufacturing, and as an investment in the future of high-quality, well paid jobs. They were welcomed for those reasons. However, those announcements are undermined by the decision taken by BAE Systems, which establishes the worry that more work may be sent out of the UK.
It is clear from my meetings with BAE employees from Salmesbury and Warton that there are growing anxieties among workers about the future of their jobs and of aerospace manufacturing in the Northwest. Hundreds of companies in the area contribute to the supply chain, so it is important to consider the future of the jobs provided by the industry.
I am worried about second and third-tier work being contracted overseas, which ought to go to UK companies. There is a danger that other parts of Europe will benefit from the money that the Government have made available for launch aid. The problem is not so great with first-tier contracts, but British companies are not getting their fair share of second and third-tier work. The money being used comes from British taxpayers, and British companies should be given the best opportunity to supply work for the industry. Thousands of jobs are at risk in second, third and even fourth-tier industries.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument about the impact of possible redundancies on the North-west. Does he accept that Members representing constituencies across the Fylde, including myself, my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) have constituents who must have thought that their jobs were secure and that things would go very well, given the amount of support given to the industry by the Government? They are consequently in a state of shock about what BAE Systems is presenting to them.

Mr. Hoyle: Absolutely. There is great shock and concern about British Aerospace and BAE Systems, which we want to highlight tonight. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has made that point, because there is not a constituency in the North-west that will not be touched by what is happening.
We want to call on the Government to seek assurances from BAE Systems that the investment that has been put in the United Kingdom aerospace industry will benefit the entire United Kingdom. We must look after UK manufacturing. Small and medium-sized enterprises are at risk. We must ensure that launch aid money from British taxpayers will support small and medium-sized businesses as well as BAE Systems. We must get that message across loud and clear. We are concerned about the supply chain as well as BAE Systems.
Although I appreciate that we have to compete and keep costs to a minimum, work should not be subcontracted out to the extent claimed. The mass redundancies that have taken place threaten the future of UK aerospace plants. There are no two ways about that—there is a great danger of huge numbers of people disappearing overnight because of redundancies.
I would like the Department for Education and Employment, the trade unions and BAE Systems to help redundant workers find alternative employment. Although redundancies are taking place within BAE Systems, there are also many vacancies. We must match the skills to the vacancies. The skills of the people who have been made redundant should be honed. Those people should be retrained so that they can fill the vacancies. That makes a lot of sense. It will cost money, but it is money that should be spent, and we should look forward to spending it. I believe that the Government, as well as BAE Systems, can match those vacancies by working with the people who have been made redundant. It is not impossible. In that way, rather than our seeing large numbers of redundancies, people could move into different jobs in this huge company. It is important to get them round the table.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I did not indicate beforehand that I wanted to intervene. I should like to take him back to what he said about the A3XX. I agree with him wholeheartedly about the support that the Government have given to the programme, and remind him that it was the previous Government who supported the A320 programme, which has probably been the most successful civil aircraft, programme since the war. My discussions this morning with the chairman of the company indicate that it is halfway towards getting the orders that it needs to launch the A3XX.

Mr. Hoyle: Of course. I know of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in aerospace matters. It goes without the saying that the previous Government used launch aid. It has been very successful and rewarding. Let us not kid ourselves—it is not some kind of grant. There is a mystique about it in that people outside think that we are giving the company money. We are not—far from it. We are investing in the company which repays the money when the aero planes that are manufactured become profitable.
It is important to get the message across that launch aid is successful not just for the company, but for the Government. To be fair, it was the previous Government who took the risk, and we are now seeing the benefits—so much so that this Government are not only replicating what was done but have gone way beyond it. With the contracts that have been awarded, we believed that we might get only 50 per cent. of what we wanted at the beginning, instead of which we have got everything that we asked for on behalf of British aerospace companies. We must get that message across loud and clear.
Training is important, but so is matching the skills to the vacancies. That will be difficult and BAE Systems will need Government support; it will cost a lot of money. However, it is important that the highly skilled people whose skills are not needed by the company are retrained within BAE System's family of companies. That is important because we cannot afford a massive shake-out,


whether in the North-west or on the east coast at Hull. We must ensure that those people are valued in future because they are important to the family of BAE Systems, and the company must realise that.
BAE Systems is a huge company, and part of it may go down while another is booming, so people could be moved around successfully. It is lucky that the company is still at the forefront of the aerospace industry. We are lucky that aerospace is one of the few industries in which we in the United Kingdom are still world leaders. I never want to lose sight of that fact, and I want to ensure that we all support the industry.
The Government have gone way beyond our expectations—and may they continue to do so. I am pleased with the Government, and I shall continue to say how proud I am to be a Government Member because they have given so much financial support. It is important to recognise that fact. We must also recognise that BAE Systems must compete in the world, but I still believe that its first moral obligation is to the work force in the United Kingdom. Airbus Industrie, whether in the military sector or the commercial sector, must continue to be successful and we must keep the technology in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Howarth: I wonder wether the hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the themes of the Farnborough air show is encouraging young people to enter aerospace engineering, and that BAE Systems has led the way by inviting young people to marvellous exhibitions so that they can see what an exciting career it is. That is especially important given what the hon. Gentleman has said about redundancies and vacancies.

Mr. Hoyle: That is absolutely right; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on. The danger is that engineering is not trendy in the United Kingdom. It is trendy in Germany and Japan. If we are to compete in the world market, we must show young people that engineering has a future. BAE Systems must also show that it has a future; it does not do much for people's morale when they hear about such redundancies. BAE Systems has a part to play in showing that engineering is important and trendy, and that it is the future.
We must show people that engineering represents the way forward through the new millennium. If we do not keep the people or the skills in the United Kingdom, they will go to Germany, which is desperate to get its hands on the wing technology. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton), who is here tonight, knows that only too well. He has lobbied Rolls-Royce, saying, "Don't miss the boat with the A400M." The clear message to Rolls-Royce is that they must get a move on otherwise they will lose the race, and we cannot afford to do that.
We are world leaders in aero engines. The Government have supported that aircraft, and Europe has followed us because we have pushed ahead with the project. I would hate to think that Rolls-Royce could miss the boat because it is not taking seriously what will happen in the European aerospace industry. The French would love to put their engines on it, which would be a disaster for most of the United Kingdom, because many companies supply Rolls-Royce.
We should send Rolls-Royce a clear message not to miss the boat. We must also tell the trade unions what a good job they have done in lobbying Parliament. Workers

from different aerospace companies lobbied both major political parties last week about their worries. We must listen and take on board what is said without losing sight of what they want. They want to be reassured that work will not go to countries in which labour costs are much lower than ours. We must tell them not to worry and that we will stand by them and by BAE Systems. We must talk, retrain and put people into vacancies.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for giving the House an opportunity to discuss a sector of the economy in which British industry, from its prime contractors and right up the supply chain, is among the world's leaders. It is particularly welcome to be debating the matter while the Farnborough air show is displaying what a great industry we have, by showing our talents and abilities alongside those of our global competitors.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I can share with the Minister the latest information that I have from the show. So far, orders worth £18 billion have been taken on the first two days, eclipsing the amount taken during the whole of the last show, two years ago. That is very good news for the air show and for Britain.

Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman articulates a message that has come back to us from the show. It is a great success for the British aerospace industry, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley is a great champion. I shall move on shortly to his specific points, but should like first to dwell on the industry's success.

Mr. Hoyle: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of the many rumours around tonight about good news on the A400M. That would be good for the United Kingdom and good for the military airbus in Europe.

Mr. Johnson: I am sure that there is very good news, but tonight's debate is not the right place for me to announce it. The whispers are certainly coming loud and clear.
My hon. Friend made several important points, rightly mentioning recent Government announcements in support of BAE Systems and the wider industrial supply chain. I am grateful for the warm support that he and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) have given the Government's actions. We were delighted to announce launch investment support for the Airbus A3XX programme, which is being offered precisely to ensure that the UK receives the many economic benefits that flow from projects of that scale and complexity.
There will be direct financial benefits to the Government because, as my hon. Friend said, launch investment is not a grant but a risk-sharing partnership in which the Government's investment is repaid at a rate of return as real as that for product sales in the marketplace. The hon. Member for Aldershot mentioned the success of


earlier endeavours from which we are still reaping the rewards. That was an enormously important investment for the Government.

Mr. Howarth: The Minister is absolutely right. Does he have a figure to show just how much the Government are reaping in return on the A320 investment?

Mr. Johnson: I regret that I do not have a figure, but the project is the most successful aircraft venture that we have ever known. Its success is absolutely astounding.
The A3XX will be the largest civil aircraft project ever undertaken, representing a major step change in aircraft capability. It means the development of new techniques and technologies and a myriad of opportunities for UK industry at the cutting edge of the knowledge-driven economy.
Such programmes are rare. The Boeing 747 has enjoyed a life of more than 30 years. We hope that the A3XX will now set the standard for many years to come, providing long-term sustainable benefits to the United Kingdom economy.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the A3XX launch investment in March, he said that the project was expected to create 22,000 new jobs—that is, 8,000 in BAE Systems and UK supply companies and 14,000 more widely in the economy through induced employment.
In addition, the project is expected to safeguard a further 62,000 jobs—20,000 on current Airbus programmes and 42,000 in induced employment. However, it will take some time for those full benefits to flow to the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley is probably aware of the present position on A3XX—it is changing from day to day as the Farnborough air show continues, incidentally. Airbus has been offering the aircraft formally to airlines since 23 June and a full launch is expected when a reasonable number of firm orders have been received. This week, as has been mentioned, we saw the first order for five passenger versions and two freighters from the Emirates.
In addition, Air France has signed a letter of intent with Airbus for 10 A3XXs. A number of other airlines have expressed interest on that very positive basis. The hon. Member for Aldershot has said that it has received orders to half the level that it is expecting, which is extremely good news.
Airbus hopes to launch the aircraft fully at the end of this year, or early next year, with entry into service taking place as early as 2005. If, as we hope and expect, the aircraft continues to be successful, production would ramp up after that.
The first benefits are already being felt in the integrated wing design team at Filton in Bristol, where BAE is working alongside key UK equipment and aerostructure supply companies. In addition, BAE Systems has begun a large-scale recruitment drive for design engineers on the A3XX—about 300 this year and a further 300 next year.
My hon. Friend is doubtless also aware that, as well as the commercial launch of the A3XX, the Airbus partners also announced their agreement to create the Airbus integrated company. Indeed, that was an essential element of our agreement to give launch investment to the A3XX. That company is expected to begin operations formally

on 1 January 2001 and will represent a major change in the way in which Airbus runs itself, with BAE having a 20 per cent. stake in the European Aeronautic Defence and Space company.
Airbus management will therefore be basing its procurement decisions very much on commercial grounds and UK companies must ensure that they are as competitive as possible to secure work on the A3XX. My Department has a number of initiatives with the aerospace industry to help them in that respect. It may help if I mention a couple.
On manufacturing, the Government is keen to see the highest possible participation of UK supply companies. My Department is working actively with the industry to ensure that that happens. The Department of Trade and Industry has been working with the Society of British Aerospace Companies and BAE Systems with a view to holding a conference in the autumn for potential suppliers to the A3XX project. The purpose of the conference will be to make all potential UK suppliers aware of the opportunities that the A3XX offers and to encourage the maximum involvement on the project from UK sources.
The conference will also enable BAE to explain to potential suppliers what they will need to do to get on to the project, including the need for financial investment where appropriate and the necessity for competitive value-for-money solutions.
There will not be any handouts on the A3XX project. British companies will have to win the contracts in a very competitive market, but I am extremely hopeful that the competitiveness improvement work that the DTI has sponsored will help to put UK suppliers in a good position to do just that.
In addition, my Department has worked with the industry to enable improved links between UK suppliers and Airbus procurement managers in Toulouse. The result has been the creation of an office there, run by the Society of British Aerospace Companies, supported for the first year by my Department. Reference has been made to the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to select the A400M military transport aircraft and Meteor missile for Eurofighter, which was good news for British industry.
However, the topic of our debate, and the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, is his regret at the announcement of job losses at BAE sites throughout the UK. My hon. Friend mentioned my concern, given that the Brough site is close to west Hull, and referred to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), with whom I am working closely on these matters as a constituency Member of Parliament and who knows the very real, dramatic effects that job losses can have on local communities. It is important to recognise that the majority of jobs affected are affected as a result of the consolidation and rationalisation following the BAE merger with Marconi Electronic Systems. The objectives are to reduce product overlap and the duplication of facilities and resources, to improve efficiency and consolidate activities to maintain competitiveness in the global marketplace. In that way, BAE will be in the best possible position to compete for and win more business for Britain.
BAE has confirmed that it is committed to several measures to mitigate the effects of the announcement on its employees and will use every measure available to avoid compulsory redundancy. My hon. Friend made an important point about matching skills to vacancies, on which all Members of Parliament for affected constituencies—including myself—are working hard with management, the unions and BAE Systems. I understand that the company is in discussion with the unions and has opened a selective voluntary redundancy agreement across the affected areas. In addition, BAE has a good reputation on retraining and reskilling. The company also aims to maximise redeployment and give assistance with relocation.
Furthermore, to protect core competencies and the UK's manufacturing capability, BAE plans to recruit about 2, 000 engineers over the next 18 months and about 1,000 young people over the next two years, as has been mentioned. Officials in the Employment Service have kept in close contact with BAE and are offering appropriate support. Jobcentres in Blackburn and St. Anne's that deal with Salmesbury and Warton have been in touch with BAE since 9 June.
Once the picture on possible compulsory redundancies becomes clearer, it will be possible to draw up a detailed strategy. For example, the Employment Service has the option to designate redundancies as large scale, enabling early access to its job search programmes. Warton and Salmesbury TEC has also offered a tailored package of support. My hon. Friend drew attention to a trend in BAE to give increasing quantities of subcontract work to countries with lower labour costs. However, I am sure that he appreciates from talking with the people involved, not least the unions, that they take an extremely constructive

approach to these issues and recognise the realities of globalisation and fighting for orders in a fiercely competitive market.
BAE is under increasing commercial pressure to keep costs down to remain competitive. Importantly, however, when subcontract work is placed abroad, it is sometimes part of a marketing campaign to win overseas contracts and bring more work to the UK. Some of those orders could not be achieved unless an element was placed abroad. I know that my hon. Friend accepts those points, but it is as well to put them on the record.
In conclusion, my hon. Friend made three points. There are usually good commercial reasons for decisions on where to place subcontract work. As my hon. Friend suggested, placing contracts overseas may be a result of lower production and is sometimes done because equipment cannot be procured locally. Sometimes, as I said, it forms part of a marketing strategy or offset requirement to win foreign contracts and bring even more work to Britain. In any event, BAE needs to keep the pressure on costs if it is to remain competitive in the global market.
As I have highlighted, BAE is working with the trade unions to keep the number of compulsory redundancies to a minimum. Through the work that BAE is undertaking with its suppliers, as well as the A3XX conference on the Airbus in the autumn, which I mentioned, the approved suppliers list for A400M and BAE's support for various competitive improvement programmes, the company is demonstrating the seriousness with which it approaches its responsibilities. The responsible approach of the trade unions that have lobbied the House has played an important part in keeping aerospace companies at the forefront of the world economy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.